Current Definition of G56:
ROBOTS in HOME ZONE - ROBOTS score bonus points at the end of the match if they are entirely in their HOME ZONE, not in contact with any element of the field (carpet, alliance station, goal, etc.), not supported by a GAME PIECE, and the lowest point of the ROBOT is higher than 4 inches and/or 12 inches above the carpeted field surface. The number of
bonus points an ALLIANCE receives is based on the total number of ROBOTS satisfying these conditions. Each ALLIANCE ROBOT entirely in their HOME ZONE at the end of the match is eligible to receive the following bonus points:
Each ROBOT between 0 and 3.9 inches above floor level - 0 bonus points
Each ROBOT between 4.0 and 11.9 inches above floor level - 15 bonus points
Each ROBOT 12.0 inches or more above floor level - 30 bonus points
Quote:
Originally Posted by dlavery
From Chapter 7 of the manual:
I don't see anything in the manual the provides for a separate definition of a Ramp or Robot that would indicate that a Ramp is NOT part of a Robot. Therefore, if Rule <G56> discusses Robots that are supported by Game Pieces, and per the definition a Ramp is equivalent to a Robot, and the Q&A makes it clear that a Robot supported by a Robot supported by a Game Piece cannot receive bonus points, then....
|
Ironically, the above sounds a lot like the lawyer speak the GDC attempts to discourage. If the party of the first part offends the second part because the first part didn't serve those tasty little wiener in a blanket hors d’œuvres the second part's third part expected to see at the party of the first part.....
Why must so many original game manual rules require more than a cursory two second analysis to determine without a doubt what the intent is? Why must there be so many Q&A clarifications for these rules in the first place? Why can't the original definition clearly communicate the intent?
I believe Cody is correct - I cannot find the definition of "supported" anywhere within the Game Rules. Lacking any knowledge of the GDC's opinion of what "supported" means (do you think we should automatically know?), most people would tend to arrive at the same conclusion - that a ringer stuck under a rampbot's ramp all the way on the other side of the rampbot does nothing to support the lifted robot on the other side. Indeed, most people I've heard have independently arrived at the same opinion - that the rule simply said a robot on a lifting mechanism supported DIRECTLY by a game piece is not to receive the bonus points. If the GDC intended for the YMTC situation to nullify bonus points all along, then they shouldn't be publishing a Q&A clarification on the matter on 2/26; they should have instead incorporated it into the original release in early January.
I think the 50/50 split in the voting is a result of a division between those who have read the Q&A "clarification" and those who haven't. I freely admit, I wasn't aware of the Q&A posting. I've read many - that one I missed among the myriad others that have been posted. Some believe reading the Q&A religiously should be a natural part of any team's daily routine. Others, like me, believe team members are already stretched to the limit in their efforts to keep a team functioning smoothly, and they would prefer if the rules were actually clear, concise, and easily interpreted as originally written.
Quote:
There really is only one way that the rules can be applied in this case. And if you think it through, you will see why it has to be that way. Some people will not like the correct interpretation (actually, since the current voting is virtually 50-50, about half of them won't like it ). Lucien has done a great job of using an extreme case to motivate the discussion. But careful consideration of the moderate cases will reveal why the rule, the application of the rule, and the outcome of the example match, have to be the way they are.
|
My brain hurts.
"Interpret"....."Careful consideration".......these words imply the need to spend more than a few moments assembling the pieces of some nebulous puzzle. Rules shouldn't have to be interpreted - their intent should be obvious. The fact you believe we must "carefully consider" the meaning inherently suggests a problem with the rule in question. Why can't a rule be cut and dry? Just say what you mean from the beginning!
Quote:
Lucien, this was an absolutely brilliant YMTC to post. I must admit, I am finding this whole discussion quite interesting. For the past two and a half months (actually, for the past several competition seasons) we have seen a significant percentage of the community all up in arms about referees that don't enforce the rules exactly as written, about how strict interpretations must be the only interpretations of the rules, hair-splitting over definitions of individual words used in the rules and their meanings, and overt "lawyering." Entire teams are saying they are going to go do VEX. Senior mentors are threatening to quit. Chicken Little is screaming about this being the beginning of the end for FIRST.
|
And you doubt the validity of the frustrations that are the backbone of these reactions? Take care to heed these warning signs - these people aren't getting upset for trivial reasons. In the case of referee criticisms (which are probably most trivial of all the concerns being voiced by teams), most of the ire has derived from referees or others trying to rewrite ESTABLISHED, WELL-DEFINED RULES to mold the game in their own image. This year's curious decision to prohibit defense against tubeless robots at GLR would be one prime example. The tendency to progressively deconstruct and rewrite the orginally-well established defensive contact rules in 2005 is another. When people believe rules are rock solid and then find out some people of influence presume they can rewrite them at will, changing the gameplay on a whim, it tends to upset them.
Quote:
And yet, when a very plausible situation is discussed, many of those very same people are the very first ones to start saying "well, the rules really don't mean that. And even if they do, let's redefine them on the fly so that they mean something different. After all, they shouldn't be enforced that way..."
|
In my case, I only question rules that were never really well-defined in the first place. It's hard to redefine something that has no original definition. Heck, no matter how bizarre, goofy, or just plain dumb I think a game rule is, if it is clearly stated in the original manual, I'd have no beef with it. I'd just view it as another part of the challenge. I don't view Q&A responses released six days after the ship date in the same light. By the way, I believe these responses, according to the GDC, aren't to be treated as official rule revisions - I still don't see anything in the "official" manual description of G56 that makes this YMTC decision a no-brainer.
Quote:
|
The honor of a team that might benefit from strict adherence to the rules is now being questioned. Phrased like "I would be embarrassed," "shameful," and " forfeit a hollow victory" are being thrown around. A reprise of Marlon Brando's 1973 refusal to accept an Oscar is being touted as the only appropriate action.
|
I believe this would be an appropriate reaction given the (still) nebulous nature of this rule as written in the manual. If the rule's intent were obvious as it was originally written, then heck, it'd just be another quirky part of the game, and I'd gladly accept the champion's trophy. But if I felt a poorly-defined and communicated (post ship date, no less!) rule snuck up and smacked a team upside the head at the most heart-wrenching moment, I'd seriously consider refusing to accept the victory as valid. Perhaps there's nothing FIRST would let me do to officially decline the trophy, but I'd at least make a symbolic gesture, if anything to bring the problematic rule to the spotlight of public opinion.
*This all presumes my team could actually win a regional in the first place.
I suppose it is good someone is going the "cute" route to illustrate the current GDC intent of G56 via this YMTC, but it is truly sad that the 50% of poll respondents who didn't "get it right" weren't given the opportunity to quickly learn of the rule's intent when they first printed out their manuals in January.......