Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

If your lift number two didnt have a robot on it, you should lift it up to avoid the whole situation. Thats my final opinion. Red should rather be safe than sorry, and lift the second lift as to eliminate any doubt.

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

Dave I agree wholeheartedly that when applicable, arguments should be supported by facts...otherwise there would be A LOT of moot arguments in the world.

I understand the rule as it stands, and I agree the correct interpretation of the rules would be to have the bonus points not awarded to the red alliance.

I believe I also understand why this rule is the way it is, and why it has to be this way.

What I don't understand is why in this kind of situation the red alliance is being robbed? Based on what you have stated, I think you agree that the red alliance has completed a lift, and that the tube in question, while supporting the lifting robot's ramp, is not directly contributing to the lift of the other robot. Why can't this exact situation be brought up in the rules to ensure teams are not being robbed?

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

According to this definition it is the lifted robot that scores the points, not the lifting robot. Therefore the lifted robot needs to be entirely in the home zone, not in contact with any field element, not supported by a game piece, and it's lowest point at least 4" or 12" off the carpet. None of these requirements are needed for the lifting robot.

Therefore The red alliance should win this match because The lifted robot is not being supported by a game piece, even though a portion (not connected to the lifting portion of the alliance robot) of the lifting robot is supported. Now if the portion that lifted the alliance robot was supported (even in the slightest) by a tube then the lift would be negated.

Sorry, Dave. But since the subject of the rule specifically is the lifted robot, and since there is no reference to the status of the lifting robot in the rule, it has to be scored as a successful lift regardless of the intent of the rule.

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

One word: consistency

A referee will never have to determine if a robot is ever supported by a tube. If there's a ringer underneath a lifters robot than for consistency between referees the bonus points do not count.

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

The lifted robot IS supported by the game piece since it is a transitive property as described by the GDC.

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

Consistency is obviously really important, but why can't the rule be consistent to determine if the robot is still lifted by removing a tube? If you recall back in 04, to determine if a robot was hanging or not, they would remove other robots, if it still hung, it counted...

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

Didn't they just remove the opposing hangers?

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

If this were the case, then the GDC should have included this in their team updates, which they have not.

By the rule (not the GDC Q&A interpretation) it is transitive if the lifted robot was supported by a tube, even if that support is through another robot. But in this case the lifted robot is not supported at all by the tube.

Now, the question is, which area is more 'official', the team updates and main rule book or the Q&A. I'd say the main rulebook.

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

Where is that bolded part explicitly stated in the rulebook or team updates? Only place I've seen it is the Q&A.

By the way, other than that, I agree completely with what you just said.

Put Dave on the spot! :)

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

This is fun - Clash of the Bullheaded Titans?

So we've established that according to Dave, I'm not stupid. My life is now complete! ;)

But you are still missing MY point. So the refs have to follow the rules. Of course. Please identify the exact place in the following CURRENT rule definitions (remember, Q/A responses don't count as rule definitions - I've heard no one refute that) which makes it crystal clear to Joe Manualreading Referee that the YMTC situation should be scored in favor of Bluealliance. I'm waiting!!!

• Problem #1 - Eliminate the uncertainty and confusion. The Q/A isn't the rulebook - you said so yourself! Gah, what's so hard about incorporating the Q/A "guideline" into the official rulebook? If the GDC is really all about penalizing all possible situations, no matter how absurd, just so the refs don't have to think and discuss and commiserate and decision-make as much, put the "transitive" clause in there and be done with it........Ya know what - I can't stand rules that exclude everyone from enjoying something just because of the risk that something really bad could extremely infrequently occur. Ironically, many of these rules often exist in society (and more and more at schools) because of LAWYERS and the constant threat of litigation. I think most people feel the same way. What a downer way to regulate. If the GDC is truly afraid of inconsistent referee calls regarding G56, then instead of flat out excluding bonus points for every possible "supported by game piece" arrangement, let's build some common sense protection into the rules. Right now, as defined, <G56> permits either style of "official" interpretation - which path will the GDC choose to follow?
• Problem #2 - Even if we are supposed to hold the Q/A decrees to be sacred, WHAT HAS BEEN DONE TO COMMUNICATE THIS TO EVERY REF CREW AT EVERY COMPETITION? To my knowledge (and I could be wrong - I'm hoping my fellow competitors at Pittsburgh can chime in here), this rule as "clarified" by the Q/A was NOT called in Pittsburgh. Maybe this YMTC situation never happened to force such a call, but I don't remember seeing it. So all regional-goers, other than at GLR, where have you actually seen the refs make this YMTC in favor of blue? Lets get some of those FACTS Dave talks about on the table.
• Problem #3 - What has been done to communicate this "ruling" to all FIRST TEAMS? I'd think a Team Update would be a good start, which would actually make this a "rule" instead of a "suggested course of action". And there's always the "have the head ref highlight gotcha-type rules at the beginning of the day" method, something that works whenever the head ref isn't inventing the rules he's describing. I'd venture a guess that not nearly every team has someone reading Chief Delphi, and even then, not everyone cares enough to read the YMTC threads. Same thing goes for the Q/A. I would hope the GDC isn't using these as its sole communication channels. I don't have a problem with teams losing due to rules that were properly communicated to everyone. Please though, for the love of all that is graciously professional, don't railroad a finals alliance into an unexpected defeat right after they think they've just accomplished something truly amazing - quit taking risks with the psyches of these kids. I'm kinda bummed/p.o.'d that no one seems willing to stand up and take a few simple steps to ensure that e v e r y o n e is aware of these "interesting" gotcha-type rules before the competitions start.

Update and communicate! Passive communication inhales audibly!

By the way, notice how the gap in the poll has recently increased significantly in favor of red! Woohoo! Vote for red!!!! We have cookies!!!

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

So... There really isn't a Transitive property mentioned in the rule book, and since the Q&A forums ARE only suggestions as to interpretations of the rule... The rule book states that they would recieve the points, cut and dry. Right?

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

The primary definition for support is to hold up.

So if a robot was on top of another robot, then it would be considered supported because if that robot was removed it would no longer be held up where it is.

In the example above, the robot in question is NOT being held up (in position) by the tube, thus it is not supported by the tube. Had the tube been under the lift that the 2nd robot was on it would have been held up (in position) by the tube and therefore not scored.

Daves analogy is more like looking at a jack that is lifting a car vs. a jack where the handle is touching the car. It the first instance it is supporting the car and in the second it is not.

However, I agree that this rule needs to be clarified in an official place, not the Q&A.

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

Assuming that we're justified in saying that the Q&A is not binding without a rule to back it up (and really, that's not spelled out anywhere official), I'm of the feeling that since we lack a specific definition of "supported" anywhere, the Q&A response is the only definition of "supported" upon which we can all rely. This bothers me, because to treat it as such is a case of circular logic; effectively, it's supported because something else is supported. I have a harder time with this, because depending on the definition of support, no conflict necessarily exists, and it's quite possible that both the Q&A and rulebook are consistent. If there was a contradiction, it would be easy to defer to the rules, but given that the Q&A is intended to offer official guidance, I don't want to ignore it, despite the lack of clarity in the response.

On the other hand, maybe we should ask ourselves whether it is a bad thing for the referees to make the determination of support a judgement call. They're already relied upon to judge 4" and 12" bonuses (it's a judgement, because they often can't directly measure the robot, only the edges of the not-necessarily-flat object supporting it). The referees could examine the particular mechanism, and decide for themselves whether the toroid was supporting, or not. As long as the rules made clear that this determination was being made at the head referee's discretion, I don't think anyone would have a substantial problem with it (assuming that the referee was halfway competent). It's certainly far more practical than introducing some solid-mechanics-based criteria for determining support.

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

Whether it's binding or not (I still can't find the post where Dave said it wasn't a substitute for the official rules - maybe I'm just crazy.....), the Q/A isn't PUSHED to teams via Email Blast or other active means. That means not everyone is going to read it. That means it's poorly communicated. Poor communication makes Woodie Flowers cry.

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

I wonder if the refs at the events are aware of every Q&A response?? Interpretation directly of the rulebook would sway me to give it to the red alliance. However interpretation from the Q&A would push me to the blue. So if the refs aren't updated daily on these responses...and these responses are to be taken as a rule, aren't the refs not really enforcing the correct interpretations?