Ruling on Robonauts Balance

[Joe Ross]

Originally Posted by 45Auto

A reasonably astute observer would look at G10, and say that 118 was "attached" to the arena structure.

A reasonably astute observer would watch 118 remove their robot after the match without releasing anything, as they did in their video. Then the reasonably astute observer would come to the conclusion that they aren't attached.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

Exactly how are teams supposed to react to this kind of behavior?

The same way engineers do when given design specifications. The English language is imprecise, but "can't grab, grasp, or grapple" is at least highly indicative of the customer's design specs. If an engineer comes up with a solution that can be argued to not grab, grasp, or grapple, and yet it can be argued to do so as well, they'd better be prepared to suck up the opportunity cost of having designed/built that mechanism, because the customer might reject it.

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

I suppose your other option is to start assuming that a "reasonably astute observer" is actually a perverse killjoy that hates creativity and unexpected situations.

I think that any "option" that involves ascribing negative characteristics to persons involved on any side of this is wrong-headed. Implying that the GDC hates creativity and unexpected situations is every bit as wrongheaded as implying that 118 was trying to cheat -- neither are true, and either way there's a reason why argumentum ad hominem is a logical fallacy.

[lemiant]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

The same way engineers do when given design specifications. The English language is imprecise, but "can't grab, grasp, or grapple" is at least highly indicative of the customer's design specs. If an engineer comes up with a solution that can be argued to not grab, grasp, or grapple, and yet it can be argued to do so as well, they'd better be prepared to suck up the opportunity cost of having designed/built that mechanism, because the customer might reject it.

In this one I see your defense of the GDC unfounded. An engineering firm might be ok with situation above, but this more like if your customer had ambiguous specs and when you repeatedly went back to them and asked for clarification the customer refused to tell you what they actually wanted. Then when you came to them with the finished product they admonished you for not giving them what they wanted and rejected your design. Additionally FIRST is not the real world and should not be treated as such, one big difference is that here it's not FIRST paying us five grand .

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

The same way engineers do when given design specifications. The English language is imprecise, but "can't grab, grasp, or grapple" is at least highly indicative of the customer's design specs. If an engineer comes up with a solution that can be argued to not grab, grasp, or grapple, and yet it can be argued to do so as well, they'd better be prepared to suck up the opportunity cost of having designed/built that mechanism, because the customer might reject it.

Part of the whole design and specification process involves discussions with the customer, right? RFI's, design reviews, discussions of scope of work, all that fun stuff. It seems to me that the Q&A serves the same purpose in our FRC world. So I'll ask again in terms more familiar to you. How would you react if you went to a design review and the customer shrugged and mumbled about your fancy, innovative design?

On one hand, you can move forward with your innovative design that you think meets all their specifications. And risk them seeing the finished product and declaring that that isn't at ALL what they were thinking, didn't you hear them mumble that?

On the other hand, you can take the most defensive and restrictive interpretation possible of the specifications, and reach a design that couldn't possibly be a problem. At the expense of forgoing any real innovation or creativity in your solutions. But at least you won't have any nasty surprises in store for you.

On the gripping hand, none of this angst, indecision and heartache would have been necessary if the customer simply held up his end of the deal and actually provided you with information and input on his expectations. If they simply actually answered your question clearly the first time you asked it instead shrugging and declaring the can't comment.

[Joe Johnson]

Originally Posted by Joe Ross

A reasonably astute observer would watch 118 remove their robot after the match without releasing anything, as they did in their video. Then the reasonably astute observer would come to the conclusion that they aren't attached.

I don't know. Is a grappling hook attached to the castle walls? No, if you mean, do you need to release a latch or a mechanism to remove it. But I think the common man test (aka the reasonably astute observer test) would say they've attached to the rail.

I think FIRST was remiss in not giving a clear answer when they had a chance but after 15 years of doing FRC, I can tell you that there is nothing new here. FIRST sometimes makes bonehead rulings or as in this case passes on making a tough ruling early and then makes it later.

I know it is difficult for us to understand, and frankly, the folks at FIRST are scratching their heads too at what they have done (how did we get to this point?). FIRST is like all human institutions: Flawed it the DNA level.

AND YET... ...for all their flaws (cough, control system complexity, cough) FIRST has put together a system that is "fair enough." I am sorry to those teams that lost out. I wish it were otherwise. But a perfect system is not on offer.

Yes, let's seek to do better next year. But let's not lose site of the larger picture. If watching the Alamo is any indication, the GDC has done an amazing job. The elims in TX were about as exciting as one could have hoped for.

Joe J.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by lemiant

In this one I see your defense of the GDC unfounded. An engineering firm might be ok with situation above, but this more like if your customer had ambiguous specs and when you repeatedly went back to them and asked for clarification the customer refused to tell you what they actually wanted.

I don't believe "you can't grab, grasp, or grapple" was ambiguous, and it is patently unreasonable to expect the GDC to define every word used in the rules -- especially since people will then pick apart the words used in the provided definitions, and then perhaps the words in the clarification of the meaning of the words in the definitions of the original words, and so forth.

It would be nice if it were possible to create a positivist document. It's not.

In light of that, the "reasonably astute observer" standard is something you have to live with, and by "live with" I mean "take into account when making your design decisions".

Originally Posted by lemiant

Additionally FIRST is not the real world and should not be treated as such

Indeed. In the real world, the customer doesn't have thousands of engineering teams clambering for nits to pick on design specification. The time sink alone must be a consideration when determining how to answer questions.

Originally Posted by lemiant

one big difference is that here it's not FIRST paying us five grand .

...and everyone on the GDC could be doing anything else with their time and make more money with less grief. I hear enough of the "I'm paying for this so everything has to go my way" drivel from my college students; I would hope to never see it in FIRST.

[galewind]

In my opinion, if the GDC is relying on a head referee to determine whether something is legal, then the rule(s) and terminology are not clearly enough defined.

I do see it as a cop-out by those managing the Q&A. And kudos to 118 for an amazing job with your design. You made a few of our students' and mentors' jaws hit the floor when they saw the side mounting.

Just my $0.02

[Michael Hill]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

I don't believe "you can't grab, grasp, or grapple" was ambiguous, and it is patently unreasonable to expect the GDC to define every word used in the rules -- especially since people will then pick apart the words used in the provided definitions, and then perhaps the words in the clarification of the meaning of the words in the definitions of the original words, and so forth.

Nobody is asking them to define every word in the rules. People asked for them to define that phrase, and they refused to. FIRST dropped the ball and is punishing a team for innovation.

[Anupam Goli]

I actually had the opportunity to speak with one of the members of the GDC (Jeremy Roberts) on Saturday , and he said it was a very tough ruling. He personally liked 118's ingenuity and innovation, but the GDC decided to rule against it, citing G10 and defined "grasping, grappling, or attaching" as "Applying pressure to two or more sides of an arena structure". Official ruling from GDC.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by Michael Hill

Nobody is asking them to define every word in the rules. People asked for them to define that phrase, and they refused to.

Right, because after that word, there's the next, and the next, and the next... Setting the precedent of defining one word or two or three or five beyond "reasonably astute observer" but not another would create an emotional firestorm much bigger than this tempest in a teapot.

Originally Posted by Michael Hill

FIRST dropped the ball and is punishing a team for innovation.

Do you honestly believe that the GDC is punishing them? If so, I'm sure there's little I could say to convince you otherwise, but I hope you don't really mean that. If you do, that's quite sad.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

The same way engineers do when given design specifications. The English language is imprecise, but "can't grab, grasp, or grapple" is at least highly indicative of the customer's design specs. If an engineer comes up with a solution that can be argued to not grab, grasp, or grapple, and yet it can be argued to do so as well, they'd better be prepared to suck up the opportunity cost of having designed/built that mechanism, because the customer might reject it.

The thing is, in a real engineering situation, you hope to have a sufficient level of communication with the customer in advance of, and during the design process.

And if you don't have that level of communication, maybe you should bid/bill more, to cover the risk.

That's where the analogy to ordinary engineering falls apart: there's no meaningful way to compensate for unclear specifications, so FIRST has a higher duty to get them right in the first place.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

That's where the analogy to ordinary engineering falls apart: there's no meaningful way to compensate for unclear specifications, so FIRST has a higher duty to get them right in the first place.

I agree with the former, and to some extent the latter. However, I believe that FIRST satisfied their duty in this regard with the 'reasonably astute observer' metric.

I maintain that it is unreasonable to expect first to define common English words used in the manual, unless there is true confusion as to what a phrase means.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

I don't believe "you can't grab, grasp, or grapple" was ambiguous, and it is patently unreasonable to expect the GDC to define every word used in the rules -- especially since people will then pick apart the words used in the provided definitions, and then perhaps the words in the clarification of the meaning of the words in the definitions of the original words, and so forth.

It would be nice if it were possible to create a positivist document. It's not.

In light of that, the "reasonably astute observer" standard is something you have to live with, and by "live with" I mean "take into account when making your design decisions".

The GDC's fallacy is in the application of the "reasonably astute observer" standard.

I concur and am at peace with the fact that every word can be dissected...but that's not to imply that every such dissection is the same. When interpreting a rule, some ambiguities are more ambiguous than others. The aim is hopefully to provide a document that replaces big ambiguities with small ones, whenever possible—and does so in a way that's also reasonable to understand, follow and enforce.

In that respect, the knee-jerk application of the "reasonably astute observer" standard to so many different situations leaves a lot of big ambiguities. Refusing to further describe them preserves the symmetry of using the same standard everywhere, but also leaves us questioning whether there's a fundamental set of conditions that implies that this standard is appropriate. This dilutes the value of the standard, because we can't even articulate why the standard is right for a specific set of circumstances.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

I maintain that it is unreasonable to expect first to define common English words used in the manual, unless there is true confusion as to what a phrase means.

FIRST often uses common words, but attaches special meaning to them. I think the Q&A questions about definitions were perfectly reasonable attempts to discover whether this was the case here.

Also, dictionary definitions of these terms often imply an analogy to the human hand. Even if you accept an ordinary definition, you still need to know whether the anthropomorphic aspect of the definition is relevant, or merely the end result.

[SenorZ]

If you use your flat palm to lift yourself onto a ledge and support your weight, how would you describe your interaction with the surface? I would call it grabbing. But thats just me.

As a mentor I tell my kids to err on the side of caution; if you think you might be breaking a rule, stop. Then again, we're a small, newish team. Our challenge in FRC is to make something that works and performs basic game functions. Once you have the skills and tools to to accomplish that quickly, you have time to be innovative. Maybe, with some luck, we'll find ourselves in your predicament in the future.