FIRST Team 1501's worlds first three robot stack

[qzrrbz]

Doesn't the G30-1 rule have an issue with this sequence? It's the "lose contact once" part that might be problematic. Another rule added after kickoff...

[G30-1]

A Robot may only be supported (fully or partially) by another Robot if one of the Robots is in contact with a Bridge.

Violation: Technical Foul for extended, strategic, or repeated loss of contact.

[IndySam]

The head refs were told that momentary loss of contact with the bridge was consistent with the spirit of the rule and was OK.

[Wayne Doenges]

Originally Posted by qzrrbz

Doesn't the G30-1 rule have an issue with this sequence? It's the "lose contact once" part that might be problematic. Another rule added after kickoff...

[G30-1]

A Robot may only be supported (fully or partially) by another Robot if one of the Robots is in contact with a Bridge.

Violation: Technical Foul for extended, strategic, or repeated loss of contact.

GDC said "Repeated lose of contact". If you loose contact only once, then it's not Repeated.

[qzrrbz]

Originally Posted by Wayne Doenges

GDC said "Repeated lose of contact". If you loose contact only once, then it's not Repeated.

Call me a hardnose, but I'd have ruled against you. I'd suggest that it is "strategic" loss of contact here -- strategy is to get on top of the bridge, you have to back away and allow the bridge to swing down, and then engage the bridge in order to do that. Sounds "strategic" to me.

At the moment I think you're starring in "A Robot Named Desire", depending upon the kindness of strangers.

I love cool ideas as much as the next guy, but I'd make one suggestion -- get legal. Get legal in the letter of the law. Look at my affiliation, we have some experience in this area. :-) I'm the mentor tasked with knowing the rules letter by letter. Yes, I was around "that year".

At worst case, with the current situation and a hardnose ref, you will take a 9 point foul for a 40 point success. Sounds modestly ok. However, do you have any length to give? Is your flight deck 14" out from the frame perimeter? If not, how about leaving a feeler out on the bridge -- something expendable even, a plastic straw, anything remaining in touch with the bridge as it articulates. The naysayers can go say ni somewhere else at that point. Just a thought!

[Dancin103]

Does anyone have video of this?!? I'd love to see it in action!

Thanks.

[touchdownjesus4]

Originally Posted by Dancin103

Does anyone have video of this?!? I'd love to see it in action!

Thanks.

Hopefully watchFIRSTnow on youtube will have the elimination rounds up in the next couple days. They have 47 of the qualification rounds currently up. I really want to see a video too. I know that some of our team were taking videos in the stands but we have yet to upload them I think.

[IndySam]

Originally Posted by qzrrbz

Call me a hardnose, but I'd have ruled against you. I'd suggest that it is "strategic" loss of contact here -- strategy is to get on top of the bridge, you have to back away and allow the bridge to swing down, and then engage the bridge in order to do that. Sounds "strategic" to me.

At the moment I think you're starring in "A Robot Named Desire", depending upon the kindness of strangers.

I love cool ideas as much as the next guy, but I'd make one suggestion -- get legal. Get legal in the letter of the law. Look at my affiliation, we have some experience in this area. :-) I'm the mentor tasked with knowing the rules letter by letter. Yes, I was around "that year".

At worst case, with the current situation and a hardnose ref, you will take a 9 point foul for a 40 point success. Sounds modestly ok. However, do you have any length to give? Is your flight deck 14" out from the frame perimeter? If not, how about leaving a feeler out on the bridge -- something expendable even, a plastic straw, anything remaining in touch with the bridge as it articulates. The naysayers can go say ni somewhere else at that point. Just a thought!

OK hardnose Only the head ref can make this call and they have been told that it is legal so there is no need for them to "get legal"

[qzrrbz]

Sure would be nice to see that in writing, though. All I'm saying. Some independent agreement reached by whatever means falls short of "public knowledge" as appearing in the canon of the game.

It's still a cool idea. Rack and Roll, we built a double lift bot with an aircraft carrier sized flight deck, one of my favorite bots...

Good luck!

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by IndySam

OK hardnose Only the head ref can make this call and they have been told that it is legal so there is no need for them to "get legal"

Because all head refs share a hive mind, right?

[Chris_Elston]

Originally Posted by qzrrbz

Doesn't the G30-1 rule have an issue with this sequence? It's the "lose contact once" part that might be problematic. Another rule added after kickoff...

[G30-1]

A Robot may only be supported (fully or partially) by another Robot if one of the Robots is in contact with a Bridge.

Violation: Technical Foul for extended, strategic, or repeated loss of contact.

Just for clarification, this was answered in the QnA: (i wished we could link direct...) so this is a copy and paste:

Game - The Game » Robot-Robot Interaction » G30

Q. If a robot uses the ramp to become completely supported by another robot. Will a foul be called if the ramp momentarily disconnects from the robots?

A. There will be no Technical Foul called if the Referee determines that the loss of contact wasn't extended, strategic, or repeated.

[Lil' Lavery]

In my mind, intentionally losing contact with the ramp for the purpose of gaining points via triple balance certainly qualifies as "strategic." Even if the loss of contact is just momentary. But that's a very vague call, and could decidedly go either way.

If it used frequently, I see no way it couldn't be considered repeated.