Quote:
Originally Posted by Stud Man Dan
I guess I can understand the ambiguity of the statement because "Block" is not specifically defined ...
... For the Q&A's sake partial applied weight doesn't make sense to me, either make it equal to the updates OR get rid of it as a public forum. I realize at a competition this is kind of what a referee group does by specifically clarifying intent in driver meetings and by established a precedence in their calls. This all comes by what was handed down to them by FIRST. But to have one FIRST document say one thing and one say another is ludicrous, its wishy washy, it creates confusion, and those who can't adapt to the clarification at competition suffer greatly, when they did all they could to prepare before they got there.
|
Dan (and others), I respect your opinion and your right to voice it, and VERY MUCH respect your desire to "avoid the gray areas". However, since you continue to use the Q&A as the basis of your disdain for this strategy, how do you explain
this apparant inconsistency WITHIN THE Q&A ITSELF (as referenced in my earlier post):
Quote:
FRC86 02-07-2008 04:10 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hybrid Period
Scenario A: Blue 1 is a fast robot capable of scoring 28 points in the hybrid period by knocking down 2 balls and crossing 3 lines. The Red Alliance sets up Red 2 and Red 3 to block Blue 1 by setting up Red 3 to stop after moving 10 feet while Red 2 stops after moving 5 feet. Blue 1 turns the corner during the hybrid period and hits a blocking robot.
Is this a deliberate entanglement which is a violation of rules 37, 39, & 40?
Scenario B: Same as Scenario A with the addition that Blue 1 is tipped over by hitting the blocker?
Can Blue 1 be righted if a penalty is called against the Red Alliance?
Scenario C: Same as Scenario B with the addition that Blue 1 is damaged by hitting the blocker?
Will the red blocker(s) be disqualified?
|
Quote:
GDC 02-11-2008 01:25 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Hybrid Period
The described situation is too context-dependent to provide a definitive analysis of the situation. The rules and policies guiding the game will be implemented as well as possible by the referees, based on the conditions and actions that are observed at the time.
Please note that we can not provide an analysis of every potential hypothetical situation that may arise during game play. Please review the rules as written to gain an understanding of whether a particular technique would be permissible.
|
This response was issued more than two weeks after the one that is causing all of this "heartache", and the question describes a much more severe case of "blocking" during hybrid - using TWO robots. While I agree the addition of all of the detailed scenarios in this question somewhat complicates things, would this not have been a perfect opportunity for the GDC to clarify their intent/position with regard to "blocking" in hybrid mode if they intended it to be illegal?
They chose NOT TO.
And - also from my earlier post:
Quote:
|
Note, in fact, that the only time ANY form of the root "block" (non-electrical, non-hotel) is used in the rules is in section 7.3.5.2, rule G43, which refers to "effectively blocking the width of the TRACK", and NOT just a single robot blocking a path. (THANKS FIRSTsearch on team358.org !)
|