Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

There's also the fact that the ball never crosses the plane over the actually lines separating Q2-Q3 and Q4-Q1. The ball, and consequently parts of the robot, do cross the plane over the finish lines, however. May have something to do with it.

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

Those lines do extend under the overpass, and are thus being crossed. As stated by The Arena:

(Though since there is physically no gaffers tape under the lane divider to the best of my knowledge, the phrasing makes this technically a false statement.)

This interpretation would also make the blue robot's knocking down of the opposing trackball from its home zone in the game animation receive a penalty under <G22> in addition to the possible 80 inch violation. Ouch! No wonder that animation wasn't scored!

...I didn't want to be a lawyer, I swear! This game has so many details!

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

For those of you that don't understand why it is illegal, here are some things to help you out:

1. 1114 and 190 asked a question about holding onto the ball as you go over the overpass and how far off the ground you should be when you let go. It was crystal clear (based on the Q & A) that intent of the rule was that the ball was approximately at the height of the overpass. 1114 decided against this strategy because of the GDC response here: http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=8151. Apparently, 190 ignored this response.

2. No one ever asked about this strategy as relating to G22. Is the GDC supposed to aswer questions that aren't asked?

3. If a box on wheels drives out at the start of teleoperated and starts spinning perfectly counterclockwise while in the starting quandrant and a corner of their robot goes into quandrant 4, then they will get a penalty each time. Why is it different for an arm?

4. To be considered to enter a quadrant, the entire robot has to enter that quadrant. So the robot never entered Q2 or Q3, so Q4 is still the previous quadrant.

5. The reason many other teams did not use this strategy is because of the response in the Q & A above and G22. We wanted to do someting very similar to this, but G22 kept getting in the way.


Now for a small rant:
How can you not see how clear the G22 violation is? The robot spinning something counter-clockwise is completely irrelevant. The counterclockwise term only has to do with how a robot moves from quadrant to quadrant not how the robot moves with respect to itself. We want the GDC to have less rules, but we as teams continue to find loopholes. Stop it. The answer from the GDC on releasing the ball was clear. They said, "at least the height of the overpass." 190 simply ignored the answer. Why? Because it wasn't specifically in the rules, but the answer clearly stated the intent. I just don't get it. Maybe I just don't have a good enough imagination.

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

I think while moving into the next two quadrants is leagal, as soon as they get into the third it's a G22 violation because they still haven't completely crossed the next three lines to legally be in that quadrant.

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

Thanks Paul. It really is cut and dry.

Even if this was legal why would you do it? Teams with shooters and arms can hurdle 5,6, and even 7 times a match. 190 has hurdled once, twice this way?

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

You would do it because it is a creative design solution to the competition.

I understand the problem and why it is not legal yet this question clearly lays out EXACTLY what 190 does. And even though rule G22 was not mentioned, the question only asks if the move is legal, it does not ask if it breaks such-and-such a rule. Therefore, GDC should of mentioned G22 in there response and said it was not legal, yet they didn't.


As for my contrubution to the brainstorming. I suggest the add a "wrist" and a suction "lock" to the end of there arm, this way you can lock the suction cup in place when it is reeled back to the top of the arm, rotate the wrist (so now the ball sits beside the arm, as oppose to underneath it) and rotate you arm until the ball has passed into Q4 yet the arm has not. Then retract the arm (which they can already do, I think) back into Q1, and extend back into Q2, dropping the ball.

I hope they find a good solution to the problems they now have!

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

The GDC messed up by not citing <G22> in their response, in addition to <R16>, etc., and consequently said it was "legal". I would speculate that 190 assumed that because the Q&A declared it to be legal, that it would be a valid strategy irrespective of <G22>; that's been proven wrong now, obviously.

If it was stated plainly in the rules that the Q&A exists to give guidance for situations that aren't clear in the rules, but can't change or override a rule already in force, maybe 190 would have thought better of the strategy.

The linked response basically says, 'don't make us change the rules to your detriment'. If the intent of this rule was so important to the GDC, they should have either changed the rule to conform with their intent by issuing an update, or acknowledged that they hadn't considered that situation, and would allow anything. There's no need for confusing teams with the statement that they might issue a rule change.

Of course, given that uncertainty, 190 took a significant risk, exploiting something that the GDC had expressed displeasure about. But again, the GDC should have been clearer about what is required, and what would be grudgingly permitted.

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

Odd thing is, one of our students thought of this very idea. We decided not to rock the boat, and play the game with a more traditional approach. I'm sure that student will be excited that a team actually had the same idea and created it.:)

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

Very good point. However G22 reads:

"Once a ROBOT has CROSSED a LANE MARKER or FINISH LINE, it shall not
break the plane of the line by moving in the clockwise direction."

Which can be interpreted to mean that breaking the plane in a counter-clockwise direction is not a penalty. After all, breaking the plane and crossing a lane marker are two different activities with seperate definitions.

While I can appreciate the self-described rant on looking for "loopholes" I would suggest the alternative issue is one of discussing what the rules actually say, and what they actually mean. Encouraging a student to identify the "loopholes" in the FRC rule book might one day prevent them from leaving a costly loophole in a contract or specification.

Or it might just teach them to read text in a more critical manner.

Jason

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

I tell students not to be disappointed that the team isn't using their idea to design the robot, because they will certainly see someone else using their idea at a tournament and they can either be relieved that their own team didn't try it, or have an opportunity for a smug "I told you so." Either way, the student wins!

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYnUDaEi1D8
Irony is epitomized in the fact that at approximately 2:56 into the game animation, it appears that the long-armed blue bot violates <G22> in the same manner 190 does even though the intention for the game animation's movement is different. Sure, GDC trumps rules and rules trump game animation -- but it's sometimes very difficult to find time to sift through every Q&A and rule when coming up with a design the in build season. FRC is indeed hard for a reason.


With this exact interpretation any appendages/mechanisms that break the plane backwards should not be penalized. However, with the way penalties are actually handed out, we can see the clear intent of the rule is that nothing whatsoever breaks that plane. In the match # 45 mentioned above, 190 definitely breaks the plane backwards when you consider every other way <G22> has been interpreted and enforced thus far.

My own personal input to the design is that it's too risky to try to drop it a few inches to hurdle and then pick it right back up (which appears to be the original intention of 190's design). There are too many things that the drivers cannot easily control such as ball kinetics and other bots. Even if <G22> wasn't penalized the way it is, I do not believe 190 would be fully successful with the original design. It's "outside the box" with its own unique merits but to me the risk is too great for consistency's sake. This is just my 0.02 though.

Even so...

With a slightly longer and/or bent horizontal arm, 190 has a very viable strategy as being "that third bot". Take 2 launchers -- one that perhaps runs around with its own ball (L1) + another semi-stationary launcher (L2) + 190. 190 remains in Q3, L2 remains in Q1, and L1 runs around. Basically 190 gets whatever ball comes its way while L1 picks up the other, harder to get ball. 190 feeds their ball across 2 quadrants to L2 who grabs it and launches it towards the center of the field so it bounces into Q2 then off the wall into Q3 where 190 can pick it up again. With practice and repeated hurdles like this, the strategy would push the # of hurdles per match by a single bot well over the current record. Not only that, but they'd be in prime position to place and/or knock off almost any ball placed on the overpass. This whole scenario would be tough, but given veteran teams that know how to coordinate these types of maneuvers I don't doubt its success.

Risky designs are exactly that: risky. They try to leave he realm of intention which is why they're "outside the box" designs. It's hard to think of every scenario and interpretation when designing something that skates on a fence, and thankfully for 190 there are other ways to be successful in this game.

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

No one said that breaking the plane in the counter-clockwise direction was a penalty. It should be interpreted to mean that it is not a penalty. I would also agree that CROSSING and breaking the plane are separate.

I still do not understand how either of these arguements make 190s strategy legal. In fact, I think that G22 is one of the clearest rules in the manual.

For those of you still having trouble grasping what G22 really means:

Here is the definition of Crossing (emphasis mine):
CROSSING: The act of a TRACKBALL or ROBOT passing through the plane defined by a line (i.e.LANE MARKER or FINISH LINE) when it is projected vertically upwards. A TRACKBALL or ROBOT shall have CROSSED a line when all parts of the object, while traveling in a counterclockwisedirection, have completely passed through the plane.

The logic to tell if a robot is in a given quadrant and is answered by a yes or no question: Has the entire robot entered a quadrant (meaning crossed the line)?

One you have defined the quadrant the robot is in, G22 simply states: it shall not break the plane of the line by moving in the clockwise direction (read, previous quadrant).

The big picture is that if you are in one quadrant there are only 2 other quadrants you can break the plane of. This basic logic is what makes 190s strategy illegal. I actually went through this same logic when I sketched up a very similar robot and then realized it severely violated rule G22. I actually thought that it was the reason the rule was wrote as breaking the plane was to aviod strategies of this kind.


-Eric

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

I think I've nailed down why everything seems so complicated this year. According to this post, "the animations have been consistent with the rules that were in effect at the time the animation was completed". The three most-debated rules of the year (<G16>, <G22>, and the now-revoked <G36>) are all violated in the animation, which indicates to me that they must have all been added or changed at the last minute. The lack of critical evaluation time before kickoff for these rules is probably why they feel so awkward, and at times inconsistently enforced.

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

The robot never breaks the plane in the clockwise direction.

It is in the previous quadraant but it does not "break the plane in the clockwise direction."

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

Sure it does. The plane is broken, and the quadrant is clockwise to the quadrant the robot is in. It broke the plane in the clockwise direction.