First off, thanks to Petey for posting answer 1764 in its entirety.
I believe answer 1746
further expounds the problem brought up by this YMTC.
Quote:
|
A: Reference G17. A robot can be in 1 of 3 states: 1. outside of the loading zone 2. obviously in and in contact with the loading zone 3. indeterminate = depends on the observers position.
|
Suppose you made the foot on your pneumatic
highly visible in both its up and down positions:
-You could easily satisfy state 2 when the foot is in the down position (you are straddling, so you are obviously IN, and your foot is clearly touching)
-However, when you raise your foot,
you would no longer satisfy state 2 (you would not be in contact with the loading zone),
-
But, you would also not satisfy state 1, because you would still clearly be IN the loading zone
but not touching it (straddling but clearly not touching)
This is the problem. The rules, as currently interpreted, do not follow our common sense understanding of "in"
and "out."
Take a look at the picture posted of Team 340's robot situated in the loading zone:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=35551
I believe that common sense tells us that Team 340's robot is absolutely IN the loading zone. Common sense also dictates that in this same position,
they cannot possibly be outside of the loading zone. The rules, as have been brought to light by this YMTC, suggest otherwise.
The solution?
Perhaps it is to take the phrase "
and in contact with the loading zone" out of state 2 and replace it with "
or in clear contact with the loading zone ."
We all know what "obviously IN" means. We also know what "obviously OUT" means. The referees will have no trouble understanding either of these descriptions. I see no reason that both the wording and the interpretation of the rules cannot be subject to our common sense.
-Andrew