179 Swamp Teasers

[dodar]

How does this react with the ball-stopper that is connected to the edges of the birdge? I believe there is a piece of lexan or polycarbonate beneath the bridge on both ends that connects back to the bottom of the bump. Yes, on the wooden practice bridge built to practice field specs only touches on top but if you p[ut that ball-stopper underneath it looks to be able to touch that piece and would therefore be "grasping" the bridge.

[waialua359]

Dan,
this is yet again, another great example of a well-engineered robot at this point.
Despite the questions/concerns from everyone, it was smart of you to post it, to help shed light in other areas, concerning your robot, so that you folks can modify/revise as necessary.

-Glenn

[BrendanB]

Originally Posted by dodar

How does this react with the ball-stopper that is connected to the edges of the birdge? I believe there is a piece of lexan or polycarbonate beneath the bridge on both ends that connects back to the bottom of the bump. Yes, on the wooden practice bridge built to practice field specs only touches on top but if you p[ut that ball-stopper underneath it looks to be able to touch that piece and would therefore be "grasping" the bridge.

That might be a huge issue! When the bridge is balanced, those lexan slants are designed to be at an angle so balls can roll out. It hard to tell based on these pictures but they may be touching those when they are balancing!

Great design, I hope it works out for you in the end!

[Tom Ore]

Originally Posted by BrendanB

That might be a huge issue! When the bridge is balanced, those lexan slants are designed to be at an angle so balls can roll out. It hard to tell based on these pictures but they may be touching those when they are balancing!

Great design, I hope it works out for you in the end!

I believe there was a Q&A on that - the lexan slants appear to be considered part of the bridge.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by Tom Ore

I believe there was a Q&A on that - the lexan slants appear to be considered part of the bridge.

Exactly. Thats not the part in question. The question is if they will be touching that as well when they are touching the top of the bridge; and if they are, then they are no longer just "touching" the bridge, they are "grasping" it and therefore would be illegal.

[dellagd]

Why cant you guys just put up the technique on the q&a regarding the legality?

I sorry, but Im confused.

[JohnSchneider]

Because Q&A cant answer questions about design....


Also If our robot were to drive on their ramp(opposing alliances), who gets the penalty? The rationale for us getting is would give them the penalty under the wedge rule...

[Nuttyman54]

Originally Posted by animenerdjohn

Because Q&A cant answer questions about design....


Also If our robot were to drive on their ramp(opposing alliances), who gets the penalty? The rationale for us getting is would give them the penalty under the wedge rule...

The team climbing them would get the penalty. "The wedge rule", [G26] only penalizes strategies aimed at destruction and tipping other robots. The example giving is flipping another robot. It's hard to argue that 179's ramp is designed or being used strategically to intentionally flip another robot, when they're sitting stationary. The key here is the rule does not prohibit wedges, like has sometimes been the case in previous years. The rule only penalizes strategic decisions which result in the tipping of another robot. I feel that any reasonably astute observer would not identify 179 as attempting to tip another robot as their strategy. It's quite clearly the opposite.

[G27], as I mentioned earlier in the thread, assesses a penalty to any robot which deliberately contacts an opponent on or inside the frame perimeter. Since driving up and over 179 is clearly deliberate and definitely inside the frame perimeter, it seems that the penalty would be given to their opponent attempting to climb their ramp.

This is all of course my own opinion on how the rules should be interpreted in this scenario. Refs may call it differently.

[dellagd]

Because Q&A cant answer questions about design....

Sorry, this is my rookie year. Thats interesting though, I guess you just have to chance it with the refs? To me, that just seems a little weird.

[JohnSchneider]

Thats actually a fairly new problem this year that has a lot of people upset.

[militaryrobot]

You have blown my mind completley

[RufflesRidge]

Originally Posted by dodar

Exactly. Thats not the part in question. The question is if they will be touching that as well when they are touching the top of the bridge; and if they are, then they are no longer just "touching" the bridge, they are "grasping" it and therefore would be illegal.

I disagree that touching (and pushing down on) the top surface of two different parts of the bridge is grasping. If you put one hand on each of two shelves of bookcase and push down, are you grasping that bookcase?

grasp
1. To take hold of or seize firmly with or as if with the hand.
2. To clasp firmly with or as if with the hand.

[dellagd]

Originally Posted by Justin Montois

Per FIRST Q & A, Emphasis mine...

Q. Per this rule, would a device that utilizes a passive "appendage" deployed over the center line barrier (bump) to prevent your machine from being moved or twisted when hit (by applying forces to opposing sides of the barrier be considered a violation of this rule? Please elaborate on rule intent.

A. The intent of Rule [G10] is stated in its opening sentence, "Robots may not grab, grasp, grapple, or attach to any Arena structure." While, we cannot comment on the legality of a specific design, holding on to a field element is considered grappling and a violation of Rule [G10].

Q. Is it permissable for a robot on the bridge to extend a device that can also react off the bottom surface of the bridge provided that device does not grasp the bridge firmly?

A. Rule [G10] does not put a qualifier on how a Robot may legally grasp the Bridge. It simply says it cannot do it.

I feel like they might be in trouble...

Here is the Merrian-Webster Definition of holding:

4
a : to have or maintain in the grasp <hold my hand> <this is how you hold the racket>; also : aim, point <held a gun on them>

b : to support in a particular position or keep from falling or moving <hold me up so I can see> <hold the ladder steady> <a clamp holds the whole thing together> <hold your head up>

c : to bear the pressure of : support <can the roof hold all of that weight>


Ok. I really do like the idea, but it does seem like by the definition they are holding on the field element, and therefore violating that Q&A response.


What do you guys think on this ruleing?

[JohnSchneider]

Originally Posted by dellagd

What do you guys think on this ruleing?

Depends on if they're on my alliance or not

[BrendanB]

The biggest issue is not what the dictionary says, but what the GDC believes grasping/grappling/reacting is.