[Kit Gerhart]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

How can you say this rule was clear? Having the robot base over the loading triangle isn't blatantly obvious? C'mon. You guys are being a bit harsh, aren't you? I don't like rule changes either, especially this one. I argue that without this rule change the referees would have interpreted "blatantly obvious" as a robot base (say, the kit bot) clearly over the loading triangle. I also think the "tie wrap hanging from the base" is a ludicrous proposal, but given the RECENT interpretation that is what my team will do.

Also, look at the picture next to rule S07. It is clear that the original intent of this rule was a drive base had to be over the zone. Notice that the wheels are not touching. Also, here is the rule as written in the FIRST manual:




-Paul

After posting this question to Q and A:

ID: 1393 Section: 4.3 Status: Answered Date Answered: 1/28/2005
Q: As I read the clarifications so far, a robot can be straddling a loading zone triangle with the triangle extending nearly two feet under the robot, but the robot is not "in" the loading zone. Am I interpreting the rule correctly?

and getting this response:

A: See #978. It is very clear.

we started planning to have whiskers, tie wraps, or something hanging from the entire width of both ends of our robot. To me, the intent of the "loading zone" as a safety design is being missed, but we'll be ready to comply with whatever interpretation FIRST ultimately uses. In this game, the only thing worse than 10 point penalties is 30 point penalties.