YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

Thank you GDC and the friend that suggested this YMTC! If you would like to see future YMTCs on the Recent Activity List, you will have to configure your list to view the YMTC Forum under the Rules/Strategy Forum; you can configure your Recent Activity List here.

You Make The Call (YMTC) is a series of situations where you are the official and make the call. Please reference specific rules when applicable. The results of YMTC are not official and are for educational purposes only.

It's the Magnolia Regional championship rubber game! Redateam easily scores 5 low ringers and a couple of overlapping mid ringers to score 44 pre-bonus points. Satisfied with their 7 ringers, Redateam prepares for their traditional 60 bonus point ballet while Bluateam battles for every ringer and completes a 6 ringer top row to gain 64 pre-bonus points. Redabot deploys both of its independent ramps from each side of their robot. The first of Redabot's allies climbs on a ramp and is lifted in a matter of seconds; the second has trouble because the Redabot ramp is on top of a red ringer. After several attempts, the buzzer sounds with Redabot's unpopulated ramp still resting on the red ringer. The Redalliance gazes up from successfully lifting one robot to 17 inches to see that Bluateam has failed to get any of their robots off the ground. With a quick calculation, the Redalliance cheers crazily; in concert with Redateam's gaze, Bluateam lifts their head in disappointment of not scoring any bonus points. Realizing their second-place fate, the Blualliance holds their heads high while it seems that Redalliance is screaming from two inches away instead of the fifty foot reality. As the referees seemingly remove all hope from Blualliance by indicating no penalties, the Blualliance begins whispering and then erupts in jubilation without explanation.

Based on the 2007 Rules, YOU MAKE THE CALL!

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

I don't get what the issue is here. That redateam had a ramp on a ringer? Not even an issue. They win.

Oh, and I object to the 30 pts being called "bonus" points. They are points awarded to a main strategy in the game. Just because there is no scoring structure or game piece associated with these points does not mean that they are extra, or bonus.

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

Red alliance robot was touching a game object, which by transitivity was touching the other robot. Therefore by the rule that states the robot must not be touching a game object, red loses the extra points and loses the match 64 to 44.

Is that right?

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

Blue alliance wins this match, because Redateam's ramps are still resting on a red ringer. Even though the ramp on the opposite side of Redabot as the lifted robot is the one supported by the ringer, any game field elements supporting a robot cause any robots supported by it to not count.

We lost a qualifier match at AZ due to this exact situation.

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

YMTC isn't about this, to the best of my knowledge. Its about opinions, not about what the rules are

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

Actually, they are referred to by the GDC as "bonus" points.
Note: Entire rule quoted for clarification as to what the points earned are called and so there is quick reference to the rule(s) in question.

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

It's going to come down to: is the lifted red team going to be counted as supported?

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

It points out that they are "independent" ramps. If the ramp the robot is on is not supported by the tube, then the robot should count. If you remove the tube and the robot that was lifted drops down in any way, then i could see that not counting, but if the tube is removed and the robot doesn't move at all, I would say it counts.

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

For me, the call is easy: Is Redabot SUPPORTED - the term supplied in <G56> - by the ringer? I would say no, therefore making its bonus points legal.

The practical test for this would be to determine if Redabot would move if the game piece were removed. Since its wheels/etc. are on the ground physically supporting the structure, the fact that its nonlifted ramp rests on a ringer is inconsequential. If that ringer were to be removed, the position of the red alliance robots would not change.

I would call a win for Red, 74 to 64.

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

delete this post.

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

I agree, the same rule apllies to the back wall. If the ramp bot is touching the back wall the bonus dosn't count even though the back wall isn't supporting the robot itself. Blue wins.

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

The call will be made and the result determined by the highest ranking offical on scene. That's my preditction.

The lack of an appeals process means that the call will stand - at least until the next time it happens- then it's back to square one.

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

What you do, is remove or pop the ringer, and if the robot on the ramp loses height, than it doesn't count.

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

Quoting <G103> The "robot loses height rule?

ADD: Too bad there isn't some kind of wireless communication we could use. So that during the regionals they could contact a Central Commitee, or supreme official, that could resolve all the hidden gray areas and define some of the wording. That way things wouldn't get called one way here, and another there. Oh well, guess we'll just have to wait till someone invents such a device.

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

The fact that this poll is split almost 50/50 right now is sad. The fact that referees have actually taken points away from alliances fitting redateam's endgame description is sad.

Can we get a little common sense here, people? Can we get a shout out from FIRST to all refs to provide a 100% logical and reasonable directive on how to make this call? Will there ever be one day eventually where we stop feeling the need to debate these rules on this forum because the rules are crystal clear to everyone, and the refereeing education and monitoring system is actually strong enough to eliminate these inconsistent calls from event to event?

GAH. If I were blueateam's alliance captain, I'd be ashamed at winning should a call against redateam be made in this manner, and I'd immediately forfeit my hollow "victory" for the sake of promoting common sense, logic, and reason throughout FIRST. I would seriously refuse to accept the trophy, for I'd be ashamed to benefit from such a lame ruling that would presume a ringer holding up part of a ramp on one side of the rampbot's drivebase is somehow magically supporting the robot lifted 12"+ on the other side of the drivebase.

GET REAL!

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

Sanddrag,

At GLR, many times endgame points were nullified because ramps were on ringers. Teams actually began using the strategy of scattering tubes throughout the endzone to prevent rampbots from earning points.

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

If I've ever seen "lawyering the rules", this is it. The purpose of this rule is so robots weren't designed to use tubes to elevate robots. There really is no sane way to interperet this as the redateam not getting the bonus points. The rule says that if the robot is "supported" by a gamepeice, then the points are null. Since the robot isn't in any way supported by a gamepiece, the points are definately earned.

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

As many people have said, this is where strict interpretation of the rules is just bad. I hate to sound like I'm repeating what Travis said, but COME ON guys, both teams and refs. Let's be serious here. I have a feeling (and I'm sure others and the GDC will agree with me) that the rule was written so that teams wouldn't use the ringers to their advantage- they're put under enough stress anyways. If one of your ramps gets stuck on a ringer, and doesn't fold down all the way, but you still life 1 bot with the other, it's essentially the same as lifting only one bot and just leaving your other ramp down.

Have some common sense!!!

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

end result: tie - 64 -64
redabot gets the 30 points bonus but gets a 10 point celebrating penalty & the teams have to play a 4th match....

almost happened.

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

I suggest you check out this response in the Q&A:

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=5292

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

GDC Says:
Under Rule <G56> (as amended in Team Update #3), Robots that are supported by a Game Piece can not earn Bonus Points. Under Rule <G55>, inflated and deflated Game Pieces are evaluated in the same way when determining the match score. Therefore, a Robot supported by a deflated Game Piece would not be able to earn any bonus points. This is a transitive property, and would also be true for any Robot supported by a robot supported by a Game Piece.



Is the robot lifting these robots supported by a game piece??? I say no...their ramp is...but their robot is not. Like people have said above me....COMMON SENSE PEOPLE...red lifted...red wins

I would also not accept the trophy if i were the blue alliance.

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

For this logic to be true, then the ramp must not be considered part of the Robot. Can you show ANY rule, or Q&A answer, or Team Update, that would indicate that the ramp is not part of the Robot?

-dave

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

It's either part of the game or it isn't. Would it be "lame" or "hollow" if blueateam had put the ringers there, under the ramp? No, it would have been a brilliant play. Otherwise, it's just luck. In any game or sport, and especially in this one, there is luck involved. If you refuse to allow that your opponent's bad luck can help you win a match at least as much as your good luck, then there aren't many trophies you can accept.

Of course, we're not talking about luck. The rule oughta be that the ramp unsupported by a tube should count, but if that's not the rule, than it isn't. We do need some consistency, but not everything is a travesty. If I'm on blueateam, I accept the trophy with a smile on my face and a song in my heart.

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

I believe they have one, its called a cell phone.;)

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

The rule was clarified on February 26th in the Q&A. It's very clear. If you're on top of a game piece you cannot earn bonus points, and neither can any robot you're touching. I think it's a great rule since it makes it that much harder to get the extra points.

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

The question adressed by the GDC was definately not the question asked in this thread. This thread says that there are two seperate ramps, a robot is picked up by one ramp, with no gamepeice supporting it at all. The other ramp has no robot on it, but is being touched by a gamepeice.


The GDC responded that any robot that is being supported by a gamepeice does not count for points. I would argue that none of the red robots are supported by a gamepeice. One part of the red bot is supported by the tube, that part is in no way connected with lifting the other robot.

It is times like this when we may have to look at the spirit of the rule. The spirit, I believe, is that you cannot gain extra height from a lift by being on top of a tube... not that a tube touching the robot, which has absolutely no effect on another robot being lifted will null the score.

If I were on the Blue alliance, I would most definately not accept any trophies that would be associated with winning this match on a small, stupid technicality. I would accept the fact that the red robot performed better at the given task, and not try to weasel my way into a win.

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

From Chapter 7 of the manual:
I don't see anything in the manual the provides for a separate definition of a Ramp or Robot that would indicate that a Ramp is NOT part of a Robot. Therefore, if Rule <G56> discusses Robots that are supported by Game Pieces, and per the definition a Ramp is equivalent to a Robot, and the Q&A makes it clear that a Robot supported by a Robot supported by a Game Piece cannot receive bonus points, then....

There really is only one way that the rules can be applied in this case. And if you think it through, you will see why it has to be that way. Some people will not like the correct interpretation (actually, since the current voting is virtually 50-50, about half of them won't like it :) ). Lucien has done a great job of using an extreme case to motivate the discussion. But careful consideration of the moderate cases will reveal why the rule, the application of the rule, and the outcome of the example match, have to be the way they are.

Lucien, this was an absolutely brilliant YMTC to post. I must admit, I am finding this whole discussion quite interesting. For the past two and a half months (actually, for the past several competition seasons) we have seen a significant percentage of the community all up in arms about referees that don't enforce the rules exactly as written, about how strict interpretations must be the only interpretations of the rules, hair-splitting over definitions of individual words used in the rules and their meanings, and overt "lawyering." Entire teams are saying they are going to go do VEX. Senior mentors are threatening to quit. Chicken Little is screaming about this being the beginning of the end for FIRST.

And yet, when a very plausible situation is discussed, many of those very same people are the very first ones to start saying "well, the rules really don't mean that. And even if they do, let's redefine them on the fly so that they mean something different. After all, they shouldn't be enforced that way..." The honor of a team that might benefit from strict adherence to the rules is now being questioned. Phrased like "I would be embarrassed," "shameful," and " forfeit a hollow victory" are being thrown around. A reprise of Marlon Brando's 1973 refusal to accept an Oscar is being touted as the only appropriate action.

The inconsistency in the positions being taken is fascinating to observe.

-dave

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

OK, so the ramps are not part of the robot?

There really isn't any gray area here. A part of the robot is on top of a tube, therefore that robot and any robots on top of it are not eligible for bonus points. Whether it's being supported or not, the rule is very clear. Unless you're on the GDC you have no idea what the motivation behind the rule is. How do you know this wasn't intentional to make it more difficult to get those 60 bonus points? You can't just flop your ramps down willy-nilly and expect to score the bonus.

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

What is the definition of supported?

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

Since there was no definition supplied in the manual, I can only go with the next best thing: Merriam-Webster. The only definition that applies to our focus is number four a, "to hold up or serve as a foundation or prop for".
In this case, is the tube Holding up or serving as a foundation for anything? I don't believe so. If you remove the tube, The elevated robot stays where it is at... and the Elevating robot certainly won't tip over, or fall into the ground due to lack of ringer.

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

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?

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

Ok, just finished reading this thread, I started at 2:45 and it is now 3:40 EST. I truly hate to say this but I agree with Cody and T. Hoffman. I hate going against Mr. Lavery, being on the GDC, but the rule was not stated to put the red team behind. The rule about lifting is read from the perspective of the lifted bot, the one at X height, therefore, the fact that a part of the other bot fell onto a game piece is irrelevant, the redabots take home the score. If I was one the blue alliance, I would also refuse the trophy. My team doesn't need to resort to rule twisting to win, I believe it would be against the GP-ocity of the event.
The red alliance won. Several ringers come in to contact with bots at VCU but they were not called like this. The judges knew that the ringers had no structural support of the elevated bots, as the judges at Magnolia should, redabot is in magnolia right? If they removed the incriminating ringer, the raised bot would not move the slightest.

The cookies in red are pretty good but nothing compares to the furniture in the red lounge. Mmmmmm, lay-z-boys...

Chris

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

You're quite right; I didn't mean to make that sound like its officialness was a remedy for its obscurity. Sure, the teams ought to be reading it, but if they aren't, the officials will be in a tricky position when they refer to the Q&A printouts and the team says "what's that".

The head referees and lead inspectors are given access to a document with the entire Q&A. It's up to them to disseminate it to the rest of the referees and inspectors. And then everyone has to read it.

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

Entirely true. I was rather upset at the LA regional when some younger members of my team were mocking the security guard at the door who wouldn't let them bring their utility knives in. This poor guy was just doing his job. I told them the same advise I try to live by, "Don't ever make fun of someone for doing their job".

This applies back to the refs as well. They have the most difficult job at the regional by far; Any decision they make is guaranteed to upset 50% of the people. I'm sure that 99.9% of the refs aren't "out to get you". Sure they can make mistakes, but I'm sure they make less mistakes in a regional that cost matches than an individual drive team makes in a match that can cost a match.

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

I was a referee (not head) at one of this year's regionals. We were told that if you can remove a tube from underneath the robot "without resistance" that we could count that robot as unsupported. That's the "official" wording from the Head Ref. Personally, I agree with this interpretation of the rules. I also think FIRST has to do a better job of updating official rules with some type of logic and common sense.

That being said....there is a very valid argument that I haven't seen raised in this thoughtful discussion. The essence of the argument here is between strict interpretation of the rules vs. common sense or a looser interpretation. I think a vast majority of the people here would agree that the rules "should" allow the red alliance to win this match. However, there are many teams that painstakingly go through great efforts to design, build, and run their robots to abide by a strict interpretation of the rulebook. Circumventing the rules in favor of "common sense" by a referee would punish such a team for their time and work in these area. Just another facet of the argument to consider....

Dave

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

Oh goody, in addition to the free T-shirt, every person signing up for referee work at a FIRST regional gets a complimentary session of self-inflicted torture! :D

Well if the head refs are doing their job and disseminating the information to the other refs, I suppose that covers communication to one group of people, although I'd go crazier perusing through the dozens of Q&A replies trying to find the ones relevant to a particular call. It would still be a heckuva lot more straightforward if these Q/A clarifications were incorporated directly into the rules. Dave has nothing better to do with his time than sift through the mass of Q/A responses the GDC has generated and merge them with the rulebook. Well, actually, yes he does....that's why he brought Sean into the world.....

Actually, I believe I saw one instance at Midwest today where the refs called the "absurd" YMTC condition and negated bonus points for a robot lift. Hopefully it's being called consistently. Any feedback from regional-goers on whether refs were allowing bonus points even if tubes were stuck under ramps on the other side of the rampbot? And can you comment on whether the TEAMS are learning of this "gotcha" rule ahead of time? That's the 2nd part of the communication puzzle.

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

At Detroit today, one of 33's ramps went down onto a ringer. A robot went up on the other ramp, and then the 3rd robot of the alliance tried to get up on the ramp supported by the ringer. Because of the support, the front lip of the ramp was a few inches off the ground, and the robot couldn't make it up the ramp. But it did tilt the ramp just enough that it levered the ramp support leg up off the ringer. The head ref walked over and easily removed the ringer, because there was no longer any contact. One lifted robot counted for points!

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

I wonder ...

If we were to follow Daves' interpretation of this rule, how many teams would take the 10 point penalty (for being in the other home zone with 15 seconds left) to shove a tube under a ramp and negate a 2 robot, 12" lift?

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

Hey! No fair bribing the voters! (besides, for eveyone that votes for Blue, I have Krispy Kremes....)
OK, you guys are on the right track here. Just take it a step or two further.
Travis, there is absolutely NO WAY that I am going to touch that line with a ten-foot pole! :D

-dave

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

See? I set you up, and you drop the ball. How are we ever going to go on tour with our Abbott and Costello routine if you keep messing up like this? :cool:

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

Don't forget, intentionally making your opponent break the rules is a yellow card offense.

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

Please quote the rule that says you cannot have a tube under your ramp. ;)


All that a tube (in that position) does is negate a (60 point) lift.

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

I am getting two things from this discussion:

1. The specific situation is unclear. Q&A says no points, but there is no definition of the word supported in the manual. Manual as written says points, maybe. Q&A is NOT the final authority (although this is debatable--we need a specific "power structure" indicating what has the trump card, Manual, Updates, or Q&A). So, the head ref has to make a judgement call with little guidance, other than what has been called before (for consistency's sake--is there a way of getting calls between refs quickly?). I'd hate to be the first ref to get this situation in a Week 1 event.
2. We need an update on this situation and fast! Preferably, the only change is to add the definition of supported. (As in, touching vs pull the tube out and have two robots collapse and that sort of thing.) Simple fix, but it should eliminate most of the debate. Two views + official statements for both (if you look at them right) = not good.

If I were the head ref, right now, I'd call the event GDC member for advice. If there was no GDC member, I'd try the FTA, the other refs, the scorekeeper, and probably call FIRST HQ. If there was still disagreement, I'd likely declare for red on common sense.

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

If you're going transitively, then can't you just as well say that a robot on a ramp touching the carpet doesn't count because the carpet is part of the field, and transitively the robot on the ramp is touching the carpet?

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

In one of our matches at Chesapeake, we had 2 robots on a ramp, but one side of the ramp, supporting one robot, was on top of a completely deflated tube. No bonus points were awarded. Based on this seemingly consistant precedent, Blue wins.

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

Transitivity in this context applies to support, not simple contact. If A supports B and B supports C, then according to the Q&A response, C is supported by A. If A is a game piece and C is a robot, C will not receive points for being raised off the carpet. This interpretation is simple, easily understood...and obviously unpopular. It looks like the root of the issue is that the word "supported" is not defined in the manual.

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

Im watching the NY regional webcast...my old team, team 11 was just screwed out of 30 pts for this EXACT SITUATION...i say its unfortunate

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

Regardless of what appears officially in the rule book, at least it appears FIRST has communicated this ruling to all events moving forward. If it is common knowledge among teams, they will simply have to adjust. It is fair if everyone knows about it.

Dave, are there any other rule obscurities slated for YMTC stardom any time soon? If so, could we circumvent the process and get them out in the open through more widespread communication channels?

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

Red's ramps were independent, so whatever happened to the ramp upon which there is no robot supported is irrelevant. The robot on the side which had been lifted to 17'' is not at that height because of a tube, therefore the red alliance wins the match, the finals and the regional.
The robot supported to a bonus scoring position is in no way affected by the tube, because redarobot lifting it is not having its entire structure supported by game pieces.

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

Another yellow card offense, if I recall correctly, is breaking a rule (entering the opponent's home zone) to gain an advantage (negating a 60-point bonus). [See update 15, under section 9: the tournament, where they clarified the yellow card rules.] This is a blatant rulebreaking to gain a distinct advantage; perfect yellow card material.

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

Bold is mine

According to this, We could stuff a tube under a ramp at least once (negating the 60 point lift) without getting a yellow card.
Also note that having a tube under a ramp isn't against the rules ... it just negates a lift. (please understand that I do not condone this type of rules lawyering)

If you look at pictures of my teams robot, we fit this catagory. It is quite possible for 2 robots to be on top of ours that are not supported by a tube and have Our ramp supported by a tube (especially if it were deflated). Thus, I want to know how this YMTC turns out.



.

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

I dunno - you will have to ask Lucien about that. This is his show.

I hear that he does take suggestions, as long as they are accompanied by appropriate tasty comestibles.

-dave

Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?
 

Yeah, as an alumni that was heartbreaking for 2 reasons...1 because when it happened I knew it wouldn't count, and 2 because the score table accidentally put up the slide showing the points did count...so I had to talk over the then joyous red alliance and tell them the news...not fun.