View Single Post
  #43   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 16-03-2007, 05:05
Travis Hoffman's Avatar Unsung FIRST Hero
Travis Hoffman Travis Hoffman is offline
O-H
FRC #0048 (Delphi E.L.I.T.E.)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: Warren, Ohio USA
Posts: 4,047
Travis Hoffman has a reputation beyond reputeTravis Hoffman has a reputation beyond reputeTravis Hoffman has a reputation beyond reputeTravis Hoffman has a reputation beyond reputeTravis Hoffman has a reputation beyond reputeTravis Hoffman has a reputation beyond reputeTravis Hoffman has a reputation beyond reputeTravis Hoffman has a reputation beyond reputeTravis Hoffman has a reputation beyond reputeTravis Hoffman has a reputation beyond reputeTravis Hoffman has a reputation beyond repute
Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lucas View Post
In many past games, simply touching a scored game piece made that piece not scored. The robot did not need to be supporting or grasping that piece, just contacting it, regardless of how insignificant the contact was.

How is this ruling any different?
The aforementioned nebulous rule definition notwithstanding, there is one degree of separation between the touched game piece and the robot whose position you're evaluating for the validity of bonus points?

If I were a ref (I'm not) and I possessed a decent pair of eyes (I certainly do) and half a brain (perhaps not as obvious), I think I'd be able to tell when a game piece was contributing to a robot's elevation and when it wasn't. Why anyone believes we must make the most extreme of "support" cases a bonus points quashing rule to make a ref's job "easier" is beyond me.

So what's next level of rule escalation? The human player of the robot that's supporting the robot in position for bonus points is touching a ringer at the end of the match, so the bonus points don't count? The human player wants the robot to do well, and he's holding a ringer; thus he's "supporting the robot with a game piece", right? According to the existing definition of G56, the GDC could issue this "clarification" in a Q&A and have the refs start enforcing it on the field. The open-ended nature of these rules is truly what drives a lot of people up the wall. Define the rule. Slam the door shut in its face. Keep it locked up. Throw away the key. Don't let it escape.

I jokingly and respectfully advocate the adoption of the Tristan Lall Rule - any time Tristan feels compelled to use his own special brand of thorough analysis on a particular subject, the subject matter is automatically deemed far more complicated than it needs to be!

Anyway, ringerbots can do what they want to try and limit a rampbot's effectiveness, but in the end, the good rampbots will still prevail at ramping. Can I get a "MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA" from the congregation? By all means, go right ahead and spend valuable time not scoring as you pester my rampbot brethren with ringers in our home zone. As long as the refs aren't hampering us with equally nebulous "herding" penalties when clearing out the refuse (most troublesome that someone reported this happening at a regional - gah), we'll be fine. Go forth and elevate. Amen.
__________________

Travis Hoffman, Enginerd, FRC Team 48 Delphi E.L.I.T.E.
Encouraging Learning in Technology and Engineering - www.delphielite.com
NEOFRA - Northeast Ohio FIRST Robotics Alliance - www.neofra.com
NEOFRA / Delphi E.L.I.T.E. FLL Regional Partner

Last edited by Travis Hoffman : 16-03-2007 at 06:30.
Reply With Quote