The Robonauts 118 - 2012 Video

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by rcmolloy

There is quite a flaw to it though Kevin. If a fouling occurrence is repeated often, I would more than likely see that the team would be distributed a red or yellow card because of the actions. Correct me if I am wrong but there is a limit as to where it would be used. Come to think of it, if that did receive a G10, wouldn't it possibly not be included within the balancing point accumulation?

Show me where violating G10 in repeated matches earns you a yellow card. There's nothing in the game rules. The only possibility is [T15], the general description of yellow cards which states they may be issued for "egregious robot or team member behavior". G10 only has a 3-point foul for a penalty. I'm finding it difficult to believe a Ref would yellow card a team for repeatedly committing a 3-point foul in successive matches. You'll end up with a ton of yellow carded rookies if that's the standard we're holding people to.

Originally Posted by Tom Line

I wish 118 all the best. I will be extremely frustrated if this system is ruled legal by the GDC, thus conveying an advantage to teams that built something like this.

This issue is completely of the GDC's creation. Until they rule, all we're left with is opinion. If it's ruled legal there will be many very upset teams.

Many teams will be upset if it's ruled legal? So you think it should be illegal because your personal team thought it was and passed on it?

Congratulations! You're one of the lucky winners of this year's batch of sour grapes. You may remember some of our recent winners. 2011's batch was issued to everyone that complained about magnetic minibot launching tracks. 2010's harvest went to those who were certain that 469 violated G19. 2009 had a bumper crop with all the angst over various methods of gaining traction or downforce. And who could forget 190, 2008's illustrious winner who was certain their track ball crane would score them scads of points, only to have it deemed illegal?

Seriously, man. There's some controversial ruling EVERY year. There's some strategy that most people passed on because they thought it was illegal, only to discover it wasn't. Sometimes there's a strategy a few teams boldly embarked upon only to have it ruled illegal. Every single year there's teams on both sides of some GDC ruling. Obviously, there's at least one team this year that's going to be upset if this design is ruled illegal. Your argument that it should be illegal because you think many teams will be upset holds no weight whatsoever.

Don't get me wrong here. You're perfectly justified in being annoyed that the GDC has yet to offer a clear ruling on this design. Teams on both sides of the issue have a right to be upset about that. It's obviously something that should have been commented on one way or the other earlier in the season, and the GDC has failed to do so for some reason. But the fact that some teams will be upset if it's ruled legal has surprisingly little relevance to whether it is or not. I mean, look how many teams are upset that split team numbers on bumpers is illegal.

[rcmolloy]

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

Show me where violating G10 in repeated matches earns you a yellow card. There's nothing in the game rules. The only possibility is [T15], the general description of yellow cards which states they may be issued for "egregious robot or team member behavior". G10 only has a 3-point foul for a penalty. I'm finding it difficult to believe a Ref would yellow card a team for repeatedly committing a 3-point foul in successive matches. You'll end up with a ton of yellow carded rookies if that's the standard we're holding people to.

I apologize if I was too direct on the fact that cards would have definitively been given if done. I was trying to make the argument that it might possibly be a violation and that refs may use T15 as a means to believe that it might be egregious behavior. I know that it is not stated directly in the rules that if an instance keep occurring then cards possibly might be brought into play. If I were 118, I would have no problem taking the risk but I would also have a clearer clarification from the refs at the event before undertaking the act. However, until week 1 events, most of us don't really know the outcome.

[Joe Ross]

Originally Posted by jwfoss

LUpon further review of the bridge manipulator, I have stubbled upon something interesting. Is your mechanism capable of hanging from the low cost option of the field as provided to us here: Team Drawings

I would think that the low cost field is designed to test out all of the games rules and therefore holds some intent of the rules inherently. This also supports the rule against trolling.

By your reasoning, anyone who hung from the vertical supports in 2010 wouldn't be legal, since those were 4x4s in the team drawings, and steel pipe in the real field.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by jwfoss

I would think that the low cost field is designed to test out all of the games rules and therefore holds some intent of the rules inherently. This also supports the rule against trolling.

To second Joe Ross, the low cost bridge doesn't even have anywhere near the same dynamics as the official bridge, and is flimsy as all heck. Also, the drawings for the low cost backboards don't have the retro-reflective tape. In short, the low cost fields are low cost approximations.

[nahstobor]

What material is being used on the wheels?

[Timz3082]

Originally Posted by Jared341

I think it is obvious that their CoG is not underneath the attachment point.

Obvious for the physics, we all abide to, but 118 has a totally different set of physics, without gravity, ya know, in space

[R1ffSurf3r]

Originally Posted by nahstobor

What material is being used on the wheels?

molded urethane?

[Tom Line]

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

Many teams will be upset if it's ruled legal? So you think it should be illegal because your personal team thought it was and passed on it?

I never said what you imply. Our team believes it violates the rule on grappling. However, I also clearly stated that is only our opinion.

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

Your argument that it should be illegal because you think many teams will be upset holds no weight whatsoever.

I never said that either. I stated that I personally believe it violates the rule on grappling. I said that many teams will be upset if it is ruled legal.

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

Don't get me wrong here. You're perfectly justified in being annoyed that the GDC has yet to offer a clear ruling on this design.

And that is exactly the point I made. Unlike pretty much every other year, this question has been asked fairly clearly since week 1 of the build season. The GDC has avoided answering it indirectly and directly because of their refusal to deal with hypotheticals. I do not understand their reticence and refusal to clarify this rule. It's like they are DARING teams to take the chance, so that they can spring a surprise answer on FIRST during the first week of competitions. I'm sure that's not their intent, but that's where this is leading.

[BrandonHiggs]

Another beautiful robot by 118! Great job.

[45Auto]

[G10]
Robots may not grab, grasp, grapple, or attach to any Arena structure. Robots may not push or react against the top of the Fender. (Robots may push or react against any element of the Arena that is not protected by another rule.)

Would this bridge attachment mechanism be legal to use on the siderails of the arena or the backboards of goals themselves to create a "dunking" robot? How is attaching to the bridge any different than attaching to other parts of the arena structure?

[jafisher]

Awesome video and an awesome robot. We look forward to seeing you guys in Connecticut this year!

[ghostmachine360]

Officially declared illegal at Alamo. That really sucks; the idea and design were amazing.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by ghostmachine360

Officially declared illegal at Alamo. That really sucks; the idea and design were amazing.

Any more details? Was it called as a penalty in a match, or was this a decision reached before gameplay?

And which of "grasp", "grapple", "grab" or "attach" was it ruled to be doing?

[ghostmachine360]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Any more details? Was it called as a penalty in a match, or was this a decision reached before gameplay?

And which of "grasp", "grapple", "grab" or "attach" was it ruled to be doing?

It was declared after the match today, but they weren't penalized in their match.

Not sure about the definition, though; didn't hear what they declared to be the definition with the decision.

[CalTran]

Ouch...that really bites. But I'm sure Robonauts can rebound from this with "normal" balancing. If anything, they would have planned for this.

(Yes, pun intended)