View Single Post
  #1   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 02-03-2005, 13:16
Natchez Natchez is offline
Registered User
#0118 (Robonauts)
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Houston
Posts: 189
Natchez has a reputation beyond reputeNatchez has a reputation beyond reputeNatchez has a reputation beyond reputeNatchez has a reputation beyond reputeNatchez has a reputation beyond reputeNatchez has a reputation beyond reputeNatchez has a reputation beyond reputeNatchez has a reputation beyond reputeNatchez has a reputation beyond reputeNatchez has a reputation beyond reputeNatchez has a reputation beyond repute
Re: "Load Bearing Surface"

Quote:
Originally Posted by dlavery
Lucien, I honestly don't know where you are trying to go with this. Within just a few paragraphs, you urge the referees to ignore rules violations unless they are so blatent that they cannot be ignored and adopt some completely undefined "neighborhood" policy for determining the robot/loading zone condition, yet then you admonish everyone that "rules are NOT to be broken."
I'm truly sorry if I conveyed that I was urging the referees to ignore the rules violations. I was simply predicting that the refs will not call most of the violations. This, I believe, will be for a number of reasons that is a thread unto itself but goes down the same line as why I don't call all of the fouls and walking violations in peewee basketball. Thoughts like, "they did not gain an advantage" or "let's not stop the flow of the game for a small foul" are going through my head during a game. Granted, I have not ref'ed a peewee game in a long time so things may have changed. Please allow me reiterate that I do not see this as an issue with the refs but with the spot in which they have been put by the rules. It was just a prediction of what will happen. With that said, as a team, we will stick to the rule as it is written and clarified and not adjust to the way that it is enforced if the two turn out to be different.

Off of the specific rule and onto "where I was trying to go with this," I was simply trying to say that if the rule and the enforcement turn out to be different then we are sending a wrong message to the FIRST community. The wrong message is that we, as a society, must not worry so much about the rules as much as the enforcement of the rules. This is a great time to remind everyone that I'm throwing pebbles here and not rocks ... I drive 63 in a 55 because I'm aware of the enforcement of the law while violating the law itself ... I've got another 5,389 rules that I routinely violate because I know the enforcement ... violating a few of them that start with "Thou shall" or "Thou shall not" might result in me residing in a place that I'd rather not be. It's true and am embarrassed to admit it!

The reason that I discuss societal values in the context of current rules is because "there is a lesson learned in everything we do." AND because I have an enormous respect for FIRST for the positive influence the program has on our youth and mentors. I hope to be part of the solutions that bring FIRST to become a more positive influence on the FIRST community. Trust me, I know that I'd be laughed out of the room if I was to trying to convey my "don't bend the rules" philosophy to a room full of high school football coaches. That's what makes FIRST so special ... we strive to create a society that our grandmothers would be proud.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dlavery
Jason's remarks and quotes were right on target. There is no difference between the "loading zone" and "loading zone triangle." Specifically, refer to Section 4.2.1 of the Manual, Definitions: "LOADING ZONE – The triangular colored area on the floor at the sides of the field where robots may receive and/or retrieve TETRAS that are introduced into the game." You are trying to make a distinction between "loading zone" and "loading zone triangle" where there is no difference.
You are correct and touching is how many, if not most, of us read the rule. I was simply giving credence & sympathetic understanding to those who read it in a different light.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dlavery
The comments regarding a baseball short stop being "in the neighborhood" are amusing but irrelevant. We are not playing baseball, and MLB rules do not apply. A single analogy with baseball was used to try to help clarify a single point of discussion with regard to the 2005 "Triple Play" rules. But everyone understands that is all that it was - a single analogy. Don't push it too hard, beyond its' intended use.
ALL of my comments are irrelevant if the rule is enforced as it is written. If this is the case, I will publicly applaud FIRST AND apologize for using everyone’s valuable white space and time.


Hope this clarifies my post,
Lucien

Last edited by Natchez : 02-03-2005 at 22:40.