Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

I may be wrong, and i probabilly haven't seen their strategy clear enough, but doesn't the ball have to touch the ground or another robot in order to count as being hurdled??? How did they manage this???

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

My understanding is that the arm is going counterclockwise and the plane itself is broken in a counterclockwise direction.

However, upon further video review, I am unsure as the arm appears to break the plane of the previous quadrant possibly while it is in the third.

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

It has nothing to do with the way the arm is swinging. It has to do with which quadrant the robot is in. Since it is by definition in the Home Stretch (meaning the last quadrant the entire robot was in), no part of the robot can break the plane into the quadrant before its home stretch. It doesn't matter that it broke the plane of any other quadrant, except for the one counterclockwise to the quadrant it is in.

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

While this is clearly how the rule is being interpreted, the fact that it is necessary to add the parenthetic comment "(read, previous quadrant)" is an indication that to come to this conclusion it is necessary to read something in to the rule that is not specifically written in the rule.

I don't think anyone is arguing that 190, in their current configuration at least, violates G22, both as written and as intended (despite the unfortunate Q&A response describing their strategy as legal so long as it complies with R19). I have argued... mostly for the pleasure of looking at words in a critical fashion... that there is at least one possible design that could satisfy the wording of G22, if not the intent, by breaking the planes only while moving in a counter-clockwise direction. Would such a strategy be "in the spirit of the game"... probably not. Would I recommend a team get in an argument with a ref about it... absolutely not. But as far as looking at what the rules say, rather than what is read into them, it is a fair exercise in critical reading and I can think of no better place to engage in that exercise than here on CD.

Jason

Edit: One more thing to thow in here to suggest that 190 might reasonably be interpreted to be in compliance with G22 as written, even in their current configuration... the rule refers to "moving in the clockwise direction". My understanding is that the drive base of 190 does not move during this maneuver, just the arm. Since the ruling against 1519's multiple configuration robot appears to define "the robot" as "the drive base" and since the drive base of 190 is not moving, it is clear that the robot is not moving in a clockwise direction, and therefore may break planes with impunity. Should we include the arm as part of the robot, then the only part of the robot that is moving is moving in a counter-clockwise direction and should also be protected from penalty under G22.

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

Whats the difference between

190's match at 0:55
http://http://www.thebluealliance.net/tbatv/match.php?matchid=5183

and

27's match at 2:15
http://youtube.com/watch?v=f1N5doWRskw

The only thing that I can consider why it would be illegal is it hasn't crossed over the other lines(quadrants) but is that what the Q&A was referring too. I know some have stated that it's the quadrant that they hurdled from, but 27 launched there ball from a different quadrant at Detroit and that was a legal hurdle. Otherwise thats horrible, and i wish best of luck to 190 and the other teams.:yikes:

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

Are you kidding me? The difference is 27's robot did not break G22 and 190's did.

I just don't get it, 190's robot enters the previous quadrant while the robot is clearly in the home zone. You lawyers are frustrating me.

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

the simple answer.. 27 lets go of the ball, 190 does not

Edit: the unforunate part of this is that the GDC deemed it legal, in build season, and now it is illegal. Not trying to lawyer, but trying to help out an outstanding team, who got stuck with this problem, by finding a way for them to compete besides rebuilding there entire robot. ( As far as I could tell there drivetrain wouldn't do all that well with a different arm, so they would have to change that too, the robot wasn't meant to drive after all)

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

So was the whole problem with 190 being that they had not taken the ball off the overpass and done a lap, or cross the finish line on there home zone.:confused:

Also was 190's whole strategy to stay in the same spot and just rotate there arm to get points for the hurdle.???

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

That's the way I interpreted the rule, but that's not actually what it says.
You can break the plane into the "previous" quadrant, as long as you do it in a clockwise direction. It makes clear sense when the robot is going around the border. However, when the robot is in more than 2 quadrants, it isn't so obvious. I'd have to say it's not a violation of <R22> if the part of the arm crossing into the fourth quadrant was previously in the third quadrant.

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

Furthermore, as a previous Q&A response indicated, the GDC clearly intended for the ball to be dropped from the height of the overpass, and 190 drops it from a matter of inches off the floor.

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

Look. <G22> has been there all along. It says:What is so hard to understand? At the start of the match, the robots are considered to have crossed the line just before where they are, which includes the part under the lane divider. Now, they can't break the plane of the line behind them. Therefore, 190 gets a penalty each time they swing the ball around, now that the GDC has clarified that doing what they do is a violation of <G22> even if it doesn't violate any other rules.

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

I'm sorry, but there is very little similarity between these two actions. The 190 robot takes control of the trackball while in its home stretch. In the process of moving the ball around the field, in order for it to cross the other finish line, its arm enters the previous quadrant without the robot ever leaving its home stretch. That is a violation of <G22>. The 27 hurdle simply shoots the ball from a different quadrant - something that is no violation of G22, or any other rules, at least as far as I can see.

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

Paul, I don't think many are disputing the illegality of 190's hurdling method as clarified by the GDC. What they are instead trying to say is that the rules as written lend themselves to multiple interpretations. One man's obvious penalty is another man's opportunity to create a truly unique design. The difference between the two interpretations is often only a few misplaced or omitted words within the rule. I've also seen where the existence of the words "may" and "might" in a rule or a Q/A response color in many more gray areas than should be present.

Critical reading and analysis of the rules by teams once the Manual is released is a natural occurence and brings these "loopholes" to the forefront yearly. Unless something different is tried during the rule development process, you can expect to see this continue.

If the GDC wishes to eliminate these "controversies" in future seasons, I suggest they add some more editorial filters and Devil's Advocate sessions (i.e. "What Would 190 Do?" :rolleyes:) to the rule creation process so many loopholes are identified and closed shut before the rules are released. It may not be easy for one person or even a small group of people to do this alone, but by recruiting more people to browse and proofread the rules beforehand - the SAME PEOPLE who would have otherwise done the same thing after the rules were released anyway - FIRST and the GDC will help nip these inconsistent interpretations in the bud before they are ever published.

I'd sign whatever non-disclosure agreement I needed to sign if I'd have a chance to help make the rules more exacting and less open to interpretation. Call the team mentors who help out during this process "Game Manual Beta Testers" and let us have a crack at them 1-2 weeks before Kickoff, or whenever is most appropriate.

A suggestion for a "new" G22:

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

I'm a sneaky old son-of-a-gun who's spent my whole life playing games, and I'd pay money for the chance to "beat" the GDC. Heck, I'm even safe -- I don't do an FRC team any more. Sign me up, and tell me where to send the check.

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

This rule in its wording implies that you can break the plane if the robot never crosses that line. Thus, as 190's robot never crosses any lines in the entire match, their mechanism is perfectly legal. Granted, that's rather lawyering it, but anything to help a great team. Congratulations on going for the cool idea rather than the safe one.