Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuttyman54
1) "A Bridge will count as Balanced if it is within 5° of horizontal and any Robots touching it are fully supported by it." or conversely, if any robot that is NOT supported by the alliance bridge is touching it, the bridge cannot be counted as balanced. For example, your partner cannot sit on the ground and balance the bridge for you, and hold it through the end of the match. (This has been mentioned in another thread already). This doesn't apply to opponents, as [G25] would come into play.
|
Actually, it's worse than this. The word "
any" is the problem. "Any" does not necessarily mean "all". It can also mean "a subset of" (up to and including the whole set). This should be clarified via Q&A.
A note about your converse: that's not necessarily true, because of the linguistic imprecision I noted above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuttyman54
2) The way the [G40] is now written, it's the robots which score the bridge points, not the bridge. It now appears to read that if two robots are balanced on the bridge, each scores 20 points. I have to assume this is not what they meant, since it drastically changes the value of the bridge, but it appears to be how it is now written. This means 3 balanced robots in qualifiers is worth 60 points, and 3 in eliminations is 120!
|
That's ambiguous and worth a Q&A to verify. I think
we all have high confidence about what they meant, but there's no way FIRST should have expected that to have been obvious to an FRC rookie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuttyman54
3) Going back to the [G25] penalty, let's say red robot interferes with blue getting on the bridge. Blue doesn't end up supported by the bridge because of the interference. The bridge is counted as balanced, but because of the new [G40], the alliance does not receive any balance points, because no robots are fully supported.
|
This appears to be a correct interpretation. Hopefully the GDC will pay close attention and formulate an appropriate update.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuttyman54
If the third option is what’s being used, it opens an entirely new can of worms. If two blue robots are trying to get on, red interferes and prevents blue1 from being fully supported and blue2 never gets a chance to try…how many points does blue get for a balanced bridge? Did red prevent one or two robots from getting on?
|
This is a particularly good point. The referees have no basis in the rulebook to make that judgment call—without a rule revision, through no fault of their own, they would be forced to adopt an
ad hoc interpretation. (And a lack of consistency in officiating is one of the things that the GDC does not particularly enjoy.) If we're to read the rule in the way that generates the fewest logical problems, we might be led to assume that the GDC intends for the bridge to be balanced, but points to only count if robots are present on it (with full support).
While you're at it with drafting a Q&A, I suggest asking what is meant by "fully supported". Firstly, does the determination of full support neglect things like thrust, buoyancy, etc. (hopefully it does)? Secondly, if you have one robot, stacked completely on top of another robot, are they both counted when the bridge is balanced? Or just the bottom one? What if there is a partial stack, so the first robot rests on the second and the bridge, and the second rests on the bridge? (In other words, if you're only supported by a thing that is fully supported, and/or the bridge, are you fully supported as well?)