In b4 buttongate

[Aur0r4]

As if UNH district finals couldn't get more weird...

[Foster]

I'll bite, what are you talking about? I'm 1800 miles away ......

[Carl C]

Originally Posted by Foster

I'll bite, what are you talking about? I'm 1800 miles away ......

During the UNH District Event finals, a human player's button fell off, went through the chute, and ended up beneath the tote. When the stack was placed on the platform, the button was wedged underneath the stack. The rules state that the stack must be "completely" supported by totes to count, so the stack did not count.

I am not sure if that had any effect on the outcome of the match, but the whole thing was very bizarre.

[ArtemusMaximus]

Originally Posted by Carl C

During the UNH District Event finals, a human player's button fell off, went through the chute, and ended up beneath the tote. When the stack was placed on the platform, the button was wedged underneath the stack. The rules state that the stack must be "completely" supported by totes to count, so the stack did not count.

I am not sure if that had any effect on the outcome of the match, but the whole thing was very bizarre.

This to me is a good example of Bureaucratic ruling.

[jds2001]

Originally Posted by ArtemusMaximus

This to me is a good example of Bureaucratic ruling.

Not sure what you mean here - the rules (and Q&A - in particular Q439) make it very clear that "support" is only transitive through other TOTES - not any other object that may be on the FIELD, regardless of whether it was intended to be there or not. Is this a literal interpretation of that? Yes, but if you start reading things into the rules that aren't there, then they become sort of "guidelines", not rules.

If I were a ref (which I'm not) the deciding factor for me would be if I could easily dislodge that button from the stack - i.e. is it just there on the edge of a TOTE, or is it really wedged in there? If the former, it scores - there is unambiguously no support being provided by the button. If the latter, then it doesn't score. From the picture, it could go either way. Of course, I defer to the ref at the match for the ruling, which was that it didn't score.

[jvriezen]

Originally Posted by jds2001

If I were a ref (which I'm not) the deciding factor for me would be if I could easily dislodge that button from the stack - i.e. is it just there on the edge of a TOTE, or is it really wedged in there? If the former, it scores - there is unambiguously no support being provided by the button. If the latter, then it doesn't score. From the picture, it could go either way. Of course, I defer to the ref at the match for the ruling, which was that it didn't score.

Quite clear from the picture (look at the gaps between totes, left and right, upper and lower) that the button is supporting the totes above it.

[IronicDeadBird]

Originally Posted by jvriezen

Quite clear from the picture (look at the gaps between totes, left and right, upper and lower) that the button is supporting the totes above it.

While true that it shows a button supporting a stack. There is no part of the picture that indicates that it is the stack in question. As far as I am concerned its just a stack of totes with a button on a scoring platform on red carpet. Either way the stack itself wouldn't have changed the outcome of the match, and I believe (I don't know for certain) but I believe that the intent of the strict definitions of scored objects being supported is to prevent teams from engineering a way to artificially increase the scoring level on a bin. Again I have no way of proving that.

[BrendanB]

Originally Posted by IronicDeadBird

While true that it shows a button supporting a stack. There is no part of the picture that indicates that it is the stack in question. As far as I am concerned its just a stack of totes with a button on a scoring platform on red carpet. Either way the stack itself wouldn't have changed the outcome of the match, and I believe (I don't know for certain) but I believe that the intent of the strict definitions of scored objects being supported is to prevent teams from engineering a way to artificially increase the scoring level on a bin. Again I have no way of proving that.

Can confirm that is the stack in question.

[GreyingJay]

Originally Posted by IronicDeadBird

I believe that the intent of the strict definitions of scored objects being supported is to prevent teams from engineering a way to artificially increase the scoring level on a bin. Again I have no way of proving that.

I would imagine it would prevent you, for example, from encasing a pile of totes inside your robot, driving the whole mess onto the scoring platform, and parking there. See? Totes are on the platform! Or building a cage that stored a bunch of totes and then sliding the whole cage onto the platform. Or a ramp, bridge, or other shenanigans of the sort.

I think it was primarily meant to acknowledge that litter would be strewn all over the field and that one of the challenges would be to make sure the tote was not stacked on top of litter (allowing this could also be a safety issue if the stack became unstable).

A button that accidentally fell down, though? That seems like bureaucratic ruling to me. A lot of the rules in the handbook say "The INTENT of this rule is to ___ while making exceptions for ___", this could have been one of them.

[IronicDeadBird]

Originally Posted by GreyingJay

I would imagine it would prevent you, for example, from encasing a pile of totes inside your robot, driving the whole mess onto the scoring platform, and parking there. See? Totes are on the platform! Or building a cage that stored a bunch of totes and then sliding the whole cage onto the platform. Or a ramp, bridge, or other shenanigans of the sort.

I think it was primarily meant to acknowledge that litter would be strewn all over the field and that one of the challenges would be to make sure the tote was not stacked on top of litter (allowing this could also be a safety issue if the stack became unstable).

A button that accidentally fell down, though? That seems like bureaucratic ruling to me. A lot of the rules in the handbook say "The INTENT of this rule is to ___ while making exceptions for ___", this could have been one of them.

When you start making exceptions to rules based on circumstance you devalue the rules and those who enforce them.

[GreyingJay]

Originally Posted by IronicDeadBird

When you start making exceptions to rules based on circumstance you devalue the rules and those who enforce them.

True, and going by this, the judgement in the button scenario was valid and correct.

I'm just saying that the rule could have been worded differently. For example, G25 says "ROBOTS may not intentionally detach or leave parts on the FIELD" but then the blue box clarifies that "G25 is not intended to penalize ROBOTS that encounter accidental breakage (e.g. a failed MECHANISM that falls off), as those actions are not intentional."

They could have worded the "fully supported" rule differently. Granted it would probably be futile trying to define what was OK and what was not, hence the all-sweeping rule.

[ArtemusMaximus]

Originally Posted by jds2001

Not sure what you mean here - the rules (and Q&A - in particular Q439) make it very clear that "support" is only transitive through other TOTES - not any other object that may be on the FIELD, regardless of whether it was intended to be there or not. Is this a literal interpretation of that? Yes, but if you start reading things into the rules that aren't there, then they become sort of "guidelines", not rules.

If I were a ref (which I'm not) the deciding factor for me would be if I could easily dislodge that button from the stack - i.e. is it just there on the edge of a TOTE, or is it really wedged in there? If the former, it scores - there is unambiguously no support being provided by the button. If the latter, then it doesn't score. From the picture, it could go either way. Of course, I defer to the ref at the match for the ruling, which was that it didn't score.

What I meant by Bureaucratic is this:

Overly concerned with procedure at the expense of efficiency or common sense.

[BrendanB]

It should be noted that Frank Merrick was field side while the refs were discussing so the refs weren't coming to their own conclusion and they have to follow the rules put before them even if it might seem silly. The refs at UNH were extremely consistent with upholding the rule book including clarifying the rules when "can wars" started dictating who placed robots first.

While an honest mistake the rules are the rules and at the end of the day the decision had no bearing on the outcome of the match. Thanks to 58, 126, 133, 213, 501, and 4564 for making for an exciting finals match up.

[TedG]

Originally Posted by bobl

For what it is worth, Counting the stack would not have changed the outcome. Instead of 155 to 84 it would have been 155 to 126. Congratulations Team 133, BERT, 213, The Dirty Birds and 501, The Power Knights! The 142-141 finale was awesome! This event had a plethora of high scores and terrific robots. I am looking forward to seeing and working with all the teams again at WPI for the District Championship.

Originally Posted by BrendanB

While an honest mistake the rules are the rules and at the end of the day the decision had no bearing on the outcome of the match. Thanks to 58, 126, 133, 213, 501, and 4564 for making for an exciting finals match up.

Yes, agreed, very exciting final matches!
Thanks to everyone who participated and congratulations to all the teams.
Too bad about the button thing, that was unfortunate, but as bob mentioned, it wouldn't have changed the outcome of that match.

The UNH District was a HOOT!

[Ozuru]

Interesting.

It's a sad thing to occur but the rules are very clear on this and I think the call was fair. It didn't determine the outcome of the match so there shouldn't be too much drama over it, thanks for sharing.