|
maybe not an issue
Since this is a variation of the other thread, I'm going to repost this because I still think teams may be wasting a lot of energy on this before seeing how FIRST clarifies the update on Monday or Tuesday.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't SC8 and SC9 say that:
A container is counted as "IN" if it is touching the carpet in the scoring the zone, touching a container which is supported by a container touching the carpet in the scoring zone, or is supported by an OPPONENT robot that is touching the scoring zone carpet.
"IN" means it counts as a POINT, NOT a stack. No where does it say this counts as a stack. I think an assumption was made that is never actually said by FIRST. Again - NO WHERE does FIRST actually state that a container being held in the air counts as a multiplier or a stack. It is too vague and up to interpretation - that is true - but lets see how they clarify the wording to see what their real intention is.
The STACK is determined by the highest SHU of the STACK, not of a container "IN" in the scoring the zone. Two different issues - I don't think a robot holding a container 8 feet high in the air has anything to do with the "STACK" multiplier - all SC9 says is that container being held 8 feet high will count as "IN", meaning it's worth one point. But to count as part of a stack it must be touching containers which are touching containers which in some pile/stack/chain are touching the carpet of the scoring zone.
Dave, Joe, and others - what do you think? Do you think this could just be a case of reading something between the lines which isn't actually there? I don't think there is any scenario which allows for negative points - but I think SC9 just says that if a container is supported by (resting on top of, is being held by, etc...) an opponent robot which is in "YOUR" scoring zone that it will be counted as "IN" and count as a point. Nothing to do with the stack.
If I'm right, than at least there is no controversy and everything is exactly as we thought it was on Friday - just that we had a really interesting 48 hour hypothetical discussion. Any thoughts?
JM
|