View Single Post
  #45   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 15-02-2012, 11:24
Siri's Avatar
Siri Siri is offline
Dare greatly
AKA: 1640 coach 2010-2014
FRC #2641 (PCCR; Refs & RIs)
Team Role: Coach
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Rookie Year: 2007
Location: PA
Posts: 1,639
Siri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via ICQ to Siri
Re: Team Update 2012-02-14

Quote:
Originally Posted by pfreivald View Post
That's an odd statement. It was never unclear -- the specification was that you are above the platform and not supported by another robot; they never gave any guidelines as to how. (Indeed, the only reason you had to use the tower is because it was the only possible way to do it, and not because of some rules specificity.)
You were required to be in contact with the Tower in 2010.

2010:
ELEVATED: A ROBOT that is completely above the plane of the PLATFORM and in contact with the TOWER shall be considered ELEVATED.

2012:
A Bridge will count as Balanced if it is within 5° of horizontal and all Robots touching it are fully supported by it.


In 2010, most teams thought that rule meant you needed to be on the horizontal bars. In 2012, most teams thought you needed to be on the top surface of the bridge. In 2010, they were wrong; in 2012, they were right. In 2010, the definition of tower was never asked on the Q&A. (Whereas sitting on the platform was asked numerous times and fully approved.) In 2012, it was asked twice, once in direct reference to G40, before the definition was changed.

Also in 2010, the rules were deliberately changed to legalize ball deflection (Team Update #2: 15 Jan and #9: 9 Feb). In 2012, the rules were deliberately changed to illegalize trolling (14 Feb). In 2012, the GDC stated their intent on an 18 Jan Q&A after TU2: "Thus, a ROBOT that required a BALL to travel through a funnel or tube would be a violation of Rule <R19> (as amended in Team Update #2)", leaving deflectors with a calculated risk--but the GDC didn't re-change the rule to match their intent. In 2012, the GDC ignored the question of intent on the 17 Jan Q&A, and reversed their literal ruling on 14 Feb.

Whose common sense are we using here? I don't understand how two are lauded and commonsensical solutions (deflection and vertical hanging) and the other is a ridiculous thing to assume. Sure, it's a risk if to accept that the GDC can do whatever it wants, but what makes trolling less of an intelligent risk than the other two?
__________________
Reply With Quote