Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

This thread is not meant in any way to take away from the creativity of team 190. I personally think it is in theory, one of the coolest ideas I've seen this year. However, I just thought I'd bring this Q&A answer up to share.
http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=9187
Does this mean that Team 190's hurdling mechanism is illegal?

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

can we see a pic of what you are talking about?

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

I have no pictures of it in action, but perhaps this would be helpful?
http://www.thebluealliance.net/tbatv/team.php?team=190

Edit: Qualifcation match 45, approximately 55 seconds, but it should continue all the way around and released on the other side of the red overpass for a hurdle.

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

Now that the GDC has responded, 190's entire strategy has been declared illegal. At least one other team has the same problem, if the Q&As are anything to go by.

The response indicated is a reversal of this Q&A. I just hope 190 is done competing for the year. Unfortunately, I don't think they are.

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

Wow. I never realized the effect that crossing a line vs breaking a plane had on 190's design. That does appear to say that 190 should have received a penalty every time they hurdled, for a grand total of -2 points per hurdle. Which is a shame, as I do not think that 190's design violated the spirit of <G22> as the arm was always moving in a counterclockwise direction.

(Hey, finally a positive comment for the SVR refs differing from the GDC is in order for allowing the design!)

This will really be painful for 190 at the Championships. I wonder if they will use their arm in a slightly less awesome way and hurdle while lapping? Anyways, that was one really creative design.

And a disclaimer: I may be a bit biased from being on 190s elimination alliance ;)

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

This video shows their mechanism in action:
http://www.thebluealliance.net/tbatv...p?matchid=5183

Their robot appears to be legal from an inspection standpoint, and should be permitted to compete. However, per <G22>, they should be assessed a 10-point penalty every time their arm extends into the previous quadrant, such as at 1:07 in the linked video. This Q&A response should be nothing new... it only reaffirms the way the rule has been written since kickoff.

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

there arm doesn't seem to cross any line in a clockwise direction when I saw them on the webcast.

I love the idea though.. I sat there watching going.... "wow..... I should of thought of that"


PS. Doesn't the whole robot have to cross the line before G22 comes into play?? I have seen people drive to the line, have part of them cross it and still back up

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

Their arm might not, but does their suction device?
Edit: after watching the video Joey linked to, their arm most definitely crosses the lane divider.

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

That is rather unfortunate for team 190 or rather it sucks like both team 190 and our(846) gripper mechanism. They even got an award at SVR for "scoring while not even moving an inch."

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

I did see that after I posted, I watched the link and it does cross the line (he posted as I was writing:p )

This is too bad.. I love the design

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

I have to say, that is a really awesome robot and by far the coolest concept I've seen this year. Especially considering a lot of people on their team have a hard time being able to get enough time to work on the robot.

One of the suckiest robots I've ever seen:P

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

I guess it is. The GDC say it would be legal, and do not mention G22 in their response. Maybe because the arm always moves in the counter-clockwise direction (breaking the plan from the opponent's home stretch into the quadrant in between). However, it still does break the plan into the previous quadrant, without ever leaving their home stretch. I really don't know how to interpret this.

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

It seems to me that having part of the robot in Quadrant 4 before ever leaving Quadrant 1 is a technical violation of <R22>, exactly the same as if you drove from Q1 partly into Q4 during the match.

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

In my most humble opinion, it just looks like that 190 did some very good research and found a legal way, call it a loop hole if you must, to play AND conquer this game..... Kudos from me...... I'm sure there is questioning out there, but why would a veteran team try and find a shortcut. They've already proven in the past several years they are very capable team..... I see no need for them to be questioned........ By the way how's the ankle Ken?

Mike

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

Well, looking at the robot on the video, it pretty clearly violates G22. Considering the discussion around G22 here on CD and in the Q&A forums, I am surprised this was not apparent to the team when they designed their robot. This is quite a different case than the "two robots" or "one robot" issue, where the team complied with all the rules and Q&A as they were written, but then were arbitrarily declared in non-compliance at the competition. It is ironic that in this case the team was given an award for their design, but 1519 was not.

However I believe there may be a way for this design to comply with G22. G22 states that the robot must break the plane in a clockwise direction. Would it be possible to build an extra appendage on to the end of the arm, such that the appendage rotates (assuming the home stretch is q1) from q2 into q3, and then back into the home stretch in a clockwise direction. I can't really show that here easily, but I'm sure someone with sufficient motivation could figure out what I am talking about.

OR the team could, on their first pass around, take a penalty, but drop a small part of the robot, attached by a cord, into each quadrant. At this point the robot would be in all four quadrants at the same time, and should no longer be subject to penalties.

I know, I know... this probably falls into the "lawyering" the rules concept.. at least the second suggestion does... the first one strikes me as being in keeping with both the wording and intent of the rules, but I do have some sympathy for the team, who probably never thought they were violating G22 when they designed this.... even though I think it is pretty clear that with their present set up, they do.

Jason

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

I think it would be virtually impossible to design something that would allow the ball to fully cross the opponent's finish line (thus making it eligible to be hurdled again) and then reclaim the ball without having any part of the robot enter Q4... unless you flung it from Q3 to Q4, and put a wicked amount of backspin on it so it could roll back into Q3.
Intentionally committing penalties may cause you to receive a yellow card.

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

This would probably run into 80" rule trouble as well as presenting an entanglement hazard in addition to the potential yellow card mentioned by jgannon above.

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

Yeah... good point on that. The work around of intentionally taking a penalty isn't really in keeping with the spirit of the rules, either, but was just something I'm throwing out there for brainstorming. Just like when a team shows up on Thursday weighing 150 pounds we all share our spare parts and tools with them to help them get back inside the weight limit, it sounds like here they need some ideas that can help them get back in compliance with G22.

What I had in mind for the first suggestion was something like the rather quick sketch I have attached here. Again, it might not be really in keeping with the spirit of the rules, given that there is a rule that pretty clearly states that robots are to proceed about the track in a counter-clockwise direction... and in this case the robot will not be "proceeding" but throwing some ideas out there is about all I can do to try and help 190 right now.

Jason

Edit: note comment below regarding diagram.

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

i think that picture should say 'counter-clockwise'

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

Do they really have to take a penalty? If before the leave the very first quadrant (the one they start in) they place a small four-legged object atop the lane divider (one leg in each quadrant); and then operate with the bulk of their robot remaining in that original quadrant for the rest of the game; does that allow them to be in all four quadrants at once without ever returning to a quadrant that they left sometime in the past, without ever exceeding the height limit and without ever posing an entanglement risk?

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

Isn't there a rule about hanging pieces of the robot from the overpass (and how it's not allowed)?

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

It's definitely good that you're helping them brainstorm. The one bit that I keep getting hung up on is how to get the ball across the line from Q3 to Q4 and back to the robot without putting any part of the robot into Q4. How does the ball play into all this?

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

I don't think it was just good research, more importantly it was them and 2158 asking the right questions. That is exactly what the Q&A is there for: asking questions that come up during your brainstorming and getting answers from the GDC. Unfortunately, even with the Q&A, if you gamble on the very creative borderline strategies, you run the risk of them being illegal as a side effect of another rule interpretation.

Originally the rules were written in a way that 190 and many other hurdlings mechanisms would not complete valid hurdles (by most interpretations) since they were contacting the ball while crossing the finish line. Then I think there was a short time period where the interpretation was a bot could contact the ball while it was crossing, but not crossed the line. Now, a bot can continue to contact the ball while it has crossed the finish line as long as the bot hasn't crossed the finish line. Personally I like the hurdling interpretation where as you can contact the ball while it is crossing, but not crossed the finish line. I mean we are "hurdling" not "stepping over" ;)

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

Maybe I've missed something... I'm not suggesting that the robot does not proceed into Q4, (althogh I think I might have misnumbered in my original post by considering the home stretch as Q-zero rather than Q-1) just that the robot enters Q4 from Q3 by crossing the opponent's finish line before crossing the quadrant line.

Mind you, now that I check thebluealliance in more detail it appears 190 may be finished for the season, making much of this hypothesizing a moot point.

Kudos to them for going with a cool idea. It is great to see teams thinking outside the box. Or, in this case, outside the quadrant!

Jason

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

How is 190 done for the season? They are A) a legacy team and B) current World Champs on Einstein. While they might need to change their strategy, they should by all means be at Champs next month.

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

They are not done for the season. Thebluealliance doesn't look like it is showing teams as signed up for the championship event. The official first list does.
Besides, 190 is one of the legacy teams and has an automatic bid to the Championships every year, as well as having a bid for being 2007 World Champs.

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

The mechanism should work ok as a 'normal' hurdling bot, perhaps putting up 2-3 hurdles a match without incurring the wrath of G22. (I don't know enough about the drivetrain to say that they could do much more, my guess would be that this design allows them to compromise on the speed/strength of the drivetrain.)
They do have, with their suction 'cymbal' one of the best pickup mechanisms I've seen. That thing is a beast to watch in person. Unfortunately they would have to collapse the entire thing to get under the overpass and around the track...

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

The Blue Alliance basically separates championship into 5 events (the 4 divisions and Einstein). As a result, they don't really list teams going to the championships until divisions are posted (or they start guessing them :D ) . Maybe they should have a temporary event called the Championship since we all rely on them so much now :]

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

Our team (2158) was seriously considering this design during week 1 of build season, but decided against it only because we thought it would be too complex and might be hard to adhere to the 80" rule. That's why we asked the Q&A question that everyone has been referring to.

I'm still confused as to why the concept was ruled illegal by <G22>. The definition of CROSSING is that the entire robot must cross a finish line or lane marker. With 190's design, the base stays in Q1 the whole time, so it nevers crosses, correct? What am I missing?

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

In my mind, at least, you're missing the fact that while the robot is in its home stretch, parts of the robot break the plane of the lane marker (which extends under the lane divider) into the previous quadrant.

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.

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.

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

The robot is considered to have crossed the line already. That's in the Q&A. So it's breaking the plane of a line it's crossed. Good try, but not quite good enough.

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

The Q&A can say it Eric, but its not a rule until its in the rulebook, via a team update. <G22> does not indicate that its implied that a robot has "crossed" the lane marker adjacent to it at the start of the match, and thus I feel that 190's mech, AND any robots whose autonomous is breaking the plane of that line are immune from <G22> because the wording of <G22> says "Once a robot has CROSSED...", and since they never CROSSED any lines, they can't get a G22 penalty.

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

Everything in the Q&A is part of the official rules. Our team had to consult the Q&A at the Championship last year during inspection regarding the 100" rectangle I think and the inspectors changed their minds after seeing the Q&A. In our situation, the Q&A information was simply a clarification to a somewhat ambiguous rule, which is the same situation being debated regarding <G22>

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

At the risk of sounding too harsh, I have to say sorry, guys, but I just don't have any sympathy for 190 here. They've been doing FRC a long time and have demonstrated the ability to build great robots within the rules of the game. It's pretty clear to me that they conceived, designed, and deliberately built a robot that is in the gray area of the rules. They didn't write the GDC and say "here's exactly what we're trying to do: is it legal?", but danced around it by asking from what height they could drop the ball. I have to believe they had time to ask directly if what they were doing was legal and get a response. Others here have admitted to thinking of similar designs and abandoned them because it wasn't clear whether it was legal or not. 190 proceeded and got caught out. That's the way it works when you play it close to the edge - sometimes you go over. Learn from your mistake, and better luck next year.

Steve

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

Actually, I was talking to one of their mentors and he said that they had specifically contacted FIRST and had sent them a six page document outlining their design and why it complied with the rules. Apparently FIRST said it was OK (at that time). As a team, they work quite closely with FIRST, so maybe they contacted FIRST directly, not through the Q&A?

Tom

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

When we went to BAE according to 190 and a document they created the robots idea was legal and they were protected under the "Protection from Hurdling" as long as they kept lifting the ball while it swung around. It's really to bad if that this has changed. I'm very surprised that none of the members of the team have posted.

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

Tom, Adam,

Thanks for enlightening me. There was no info available to me to suggest that 190 had contacted and been cleared by FIRST (GDC?) outside of Q&A. That puts a different spin on things. I'd be curious to see what exactly they sent to FIRST, what exactly the reply was, and how binding the reply was since there was no clarification made available to the community (or am I ignorant of something important again?). I may be developing some sympathy here...

And let me add, since I didn't say it before, that the idea is ingenious. I can't take anything away from the team on that. Really really clever, great job of problem solving.

I'm still going back and forth on this. Since I don't and won't know exactly what was said/written by/to whom and when, I'm going back to the sidelines. The new knowledge doesn't change my basic feeling about the whole thing: that when you play it close to the edge, sometimes you go over. When you take a big risk, sometimes you win big and sometimes you lose big. That's what happens in the real world - part of the lesson that FIRST is trying to teach.

Steve

EDIT: The other real-world thing that's going on here is that the rules (or their interpretation) are subject to change at any time. FIRST does a good (perhaps not perfect) job of not letting this happen, but it just isn't the case in business. In twenty years of design, every single product I've worked on has had some (or many) spec or customer requirement change after they were "frozen". Be glad when they don't change, but be prepared when they do.

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

Although granted, THEY didn't ask, someone else did as I posted earlier in the thread (see here) and yes the question asks about the legality of EXACTLY what they ended up doing.

and yes GDC said it to be legal, at that time. Although they seemed to have changed there minds now...

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

With all due respect toward 190 and their design, talking directly with FIRST is not an official means of rule clarification. What anyone at FIRST says has about the game has no weight unless it is in the Game Manual, Q&A, or official update.

For those wondering, I'm pretty sure 190 is not finished competing. They are one of the original teams, so they always have a ticket to nationals. They also attend one or more off-season competitions.

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

T3,

I stand further corrected and enlightened. Thanks and apologies.

Steve

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

Wow—what a controversy! I guess it’s time we rolled in with a few clarifying remarks… Regarding “why” we chose such a strategy: every FRC team eventually develops an identity, whether it be incredibly robust KISS robots, amazing effective offensive machines, awesome driver teams, blow-you-away manufacturing quality and appearance…just as there is no “right” team demographic/organization, there is no “right” team vision other than to meet the needs of the students. Those who know Team 190 well will probably agree that the team’s vision is not to be super competitive—in fact I’d argue that we have won fewer tournaments than any other legacy team. The team motto is actually “WOW over WIN”. Due to our unusual 2-year high school, our team complement is always over 50% rookies—a good situation for ambitious innovation, a poor situation for evolved, mature designs/driver crews.

We started this season with 2 competing designs, an uber-fast speed-bot and a reasonably conventional hurdler. Neither satisfied the team’s desire to be “out-of-the-box”. When our 2 youngest team members suggested our current strategy it immediately appealed to the team. We were worried about the legality of it and especially the tendency (as in 2K5) for the GDC to modify/clarify rules during the season to meet their expectations. We thoroughly researched all the potential issues and kept close track of the developing trends through the Q&A and updates. We had a fall-back position in case the strategy became unviable. The more we developed the design, the more convinced we became that it would be legal, especially after Team 2158 received an “ok” to their question…but VERY HARD to accomplish. It required several design features that we had never seen in FRC robots of past.

We were prepared to support the legality of the design and methodology to comply with the intent and words of all the rules (including G-22) when we arrived at the Granite State Regional. We were pleased when it was approved there by members of the GDC, senior FIRST staff, and the referees. The fact that it has now been twice-inspected, twice-approved, and, in fact, twice-awarded (Rockwell Innovation in Control, GSR; Xerox Creativity, SVR) for exactly this strategy and execution serves only to confirm our position.

Contrary to perhaps some opinions, this effort was not about breaking/”lawyering” the rules, but rather being innovative both in design and strategy (frankly at the expense of being particularly competitive). Rather than build a perfect Toyota, we chose to build an Audi…

The team is rightfully proud of this robot and we are not finished competing with it (or tweaking it for that matter!)—see you in Atlanta.

Go FIRST!

Ken Stafford
Team Leader
FRC #190
WPI/Mass Academy

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

It's an interpretation issue. Q&A is for interpretation. By the way, here is the Q&A in question: http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=8187
So NOT immune by any stretch of the imagination.

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

After spending a day with team 190 in 2006 during our BAE Systems trip, team 1138 has grown a profound respect for 190 and their classic outside of the box thinking. While I won't comment on the legality situation since it's pretty clear that it's illegal (which I agreed with the whole time) now that the GDC has spoken about G22, I think the negativity towards 190 and the "lawyering" accusations are simply unfounded.

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

My question: if you need to document the legality of your machine to make a case to the inspectors, are you really following the intent of the rules? I don't really like the term "lawyering" the rules (I feel it's gotten clichéd here), but this would seem to be a textbook example. A robot should be able to prove that it meets the rules without supporting documentation. Out of the box designs are great, and should be encouraged, but being able to play within the rules is part of the design challenge.

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

I'm glad one of you guys finally came on this thread to comment!

Furthmore I would like to congratulate you on being the first robot this year I said "wow... I should of thought of that.." to.

I hope things are better for you in Atlanta

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

With the way rules are varying in interpretation from regional to regional, I think getting the documentation was a very smart and necessary thing to do. Take SVR for instance, where a simple rule like G14 was consistently misinterpreted, even after teams talked with the refs to point out otherwise. I love the innovative spirit of team 190, one of my favorite robots to this day is their 2004 robot that hung in autonomous, and I think any claims that they are ignorant to the rules is simply ridiculous. Awesome robot this year 190, and I hope your strategy doesn't get thrown out because the GDC decided to change their mind.

Mike C.

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

I think you missed my point. My point is, a team shouldn't need to bring documentation to prove why their entire strategy is legal. Any time you do that, you're in a very shaky area. You're putting your ability to compete at the judgement of the inspectors, referees, and GDC (if it gets that far). At the very least, tread lightly, and don't be surprised when a Q&A or Team Update comes out to invalidate that strategy.

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

It's not our job to fathom the intent of the rules, only to follow them. To drag out some well-worn sports cliches, the football world didn't take to the forward pass right away, and the racing world was stunned when Colin Chapman built rear-engined, lightweight cars to compete with the heavier, front-engined cars of the time. The most famous example is probably in the America's Cup regatta when a New Zealand team challenged Dennis Connor using a "big boat" following the original deed of grant for the America's Cup, despite the fact that the regatta had been conducted with 12-meter sloops since World War II. Connor responded with another tradition-breaking solution by entering a big catamaran. Sailors are still grumbling about the regatta, saying that both the Kiwis and Connor were gaming the system. They weren't -- the were using the rules as written to optimize their chances of winning, just like Chapman and the pioneers of modern football.

It's one thing to lawyer the rules -- which I take to mean fixing on a small discrepancy in the rules to win at something which you would not otherwise win, and taking advantage of the opportunities inherent in an open-class mechanical competition (which is why I keep thinking of sailing and automotive examples, I suppose -- remember winged keels, rear-engined top-fuel dragsters, and the Ford GT40s in Le Mans?).

I can't speak to the intricacies of <G22> as it relates to a stationary robot passing a ball around the quadrants. Given the definition of "CROSSING," my head throbs just thinking about it. This could easily have been prevented, however, if the GDC had just said that the Lane Marker did not exist underneath the Lane Divider, as no one would then have attempted this strategy. I think by making the Lane Marker extend the whole length of the arena, the GDC was practically asking for someone to build a stationary ball-twirling robot.

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

I think it's really a moot point, because as another Q&A response pointed out (can't find it right now--forums.usfirst.org appears to be down for me), the GDC intended for the ball to be dropped from the height of the overpass, which 190 clearly does not do. That's pretty cut and dry to me.

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

I agree this doesn't help things either.

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

I love 190, they make some crazy designs that just "WOW" (to quote them) me every time I see them. Even this year's robot impressed me in it's design and build. The only quip I have with it is the rules lawyering; Both teams I worked with this year initially had this idea, but quickly shot it down as it was clearly illegal. It's not like 190 was the only to think of it, just only the ones bold enough to challenge the rules on it.

Be sure to send them a resume.

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

A <G22> violation in action?

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

And half those robots clearly violate the 80" rule... it's an animation. Has nothing to do with the rules.

Anyone who was "confused" by the animation's rule violations clearly didn't read the rules, because it becomes immediately obvious what you can and cannot do.

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

Agreed, those are all great advances in the way the game/race is played within the rules. Operative word is "WITHIN".

Fortunately the football players never tried to use the sidelines as playing surfaces, colin Chapman never tried to 4-wheel it across the infield, and the New Zealand team didn't "Skip" a leg of the race by having a long arm that "crossed" all the checkpoints, as all of these would be fairly clearly against the rules of their particular events.

There is no doubt that 190 has come up with some very complex, inspiring and amazing robot designs over the years. As Ken said, some are not the most competitive designs; I think this is one of them. They are one of the few teams that i really look forward to seeing their robot at the first chance i get. The legality/illegality of this design has been beaten to death by this thread. 190 chose to go this route fully knowing that their design was "on the edge" of legality... And it has been pretty clearly show it is not legal.

Would I have gone down this design path for this years game? No Way.

Can i fault them for trying? Not my place to.

Is it entertaining to watch? Definitely.

Best of luck to 190 and to all teams, See you all in Atlanta!

Tom

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

This is a great iea. I added a new event caled World Championships (All Divisons) that I will delete once the division lists come out.

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

You guys claim that I'm lawyering that rule, when I am entirely not. Nowhere in the rulebook does it mention that at the beginning of a match a team is ASSUMED to have just CROSSED the lane marker adjacent to their home stretch, and I don't think its reasonable to expect teams to assume that. As I said before, Q&A is for clarification of how rules are being interpreted, not WHAT the rules ARE. If they're changing what the rules ARE, it MUST be put in a team update.

Since they never said that was the assumption (yes, they said it in the Q&A, but I submit that its not really said that way AT ALL in the rules, that the rules dont match that interpretation in any way). IF the rules said "robots that break the plane of the quadrant immediately clockwise of their current location are subject to a penalty", THEN I would agree with everyone, but thats not how its worded.

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

Uhh, no offense, but if that's not lawyering the rule, what is?

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

im gonna have to agree on this one...

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

OK fine, its a little lawyerish, but its not nearly as much as some of the 'lawyering' thats gone on in the past. The rules need to either state their assumptions, or be worded such that assumptions can't be/aren't necessary to be made. Way too many of the problems with the rules can be easily solved by WORDING the rule such that it can't be 'lawyered'.

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

Fortunately, the GDC has made it so we don't have to fathom the intent... they put it right in the manual. This is the third sentence in Section 7 of the manual:
Arguing about the letter of the rules is one thing, but the word "while" in that sentence makes the intent very clear.

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

Just an FYI...The judicial system in the U.S. has no constitutional authority to make laws/declare things legal or illegal, just unconstitutional. Yet they do declare things illegal/interpret things into the Constitution.

The Q&A is the "judicial system" of FIRST.

The GDC also makes the rules. Sometimes it's hard to tell if they are interpreting a rule, expanding an old rule, or making a new rule.

Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
 

It's teams like team 190 that keep FIRST alive with ingenuity. If they could make their arm spin faster, their robot would be awesome, not that it isn't already.

Power to clever mechniasms opposed to professional and brainless engineering on CNC mills. Even if their robot breaks the rules, refs should make an exception as they have done countless times in ridiculous situations.