54 in cylinder

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by Siri

Interesting thought, as when a similar field vs. robot question was asked on the Q&A last year, the response specifically defined "vertical" as in relation to the robot. In fact, virtually all such questions with regard to both orthogonal axes were deemed to be in relation to the robot that year, and in several others I can remember offhand.

Note that this is not to say that 2013 will be the same as 2012 or any other year, only to point out that the GDC has written in similar ambiguity in the past and ruled it robot-centric. It was really the only logical approach for many of the 2012 questions; this is significantly more ambiguous.

The two rules were written quite differently:

2012:

G21
Robots may extend one appendage up to 14 in. beyond a single edge of their frame perimeter at any time.

2013:

G23

A ROBOT’S horizontal dimensions may never exceed a 54 in. diameter vertical cylinder.

In 2012, they defined the constraint with respect to the robot - 14 inches past the frame perimeter. This year, it's defined with respect to horizontal and vertical, which I take, by their very definitions, to be constant with respect to a level floor, which is another way of saying constant with respect to the local gravity field - for all practical purposes, they don't change as the robot orientation changes, for all games played here on Earth. If you play a game out in the middle of space, you might have a different answer .

[Siri]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

The two rules were written quite differently:

2012:


2013:


In 2012, they defined the constraint with respect to the robot - 14 inches past the frame perimeter. This year, it's defined with respect to horizontal and vertical, which I take, by their very definitions, to be constant with respect to a level floor, which is another way of saying constant with respect to the local gravity field - for all practical purposes, they don't change as the robot orientation changes, for all games played here on Earth. If you play a game out in the middle of space, you might have a different answer .

I do not believe that anyone referencing 2012 is referring to G21 (certainly I'm not). The questions last year were almost all about the allowable height and width with respect to the floor while you were on the bridge or barrier. Numerous Q&A questions on these subjects even led to updating the manual wording itself. This year's situation, where again the robot is expected to climb an inclined object/traverse a barrier, are quite similar in that respect.

[Hazzerd]

I believe that its relation to the robot but this question has been brought up by my team members.

[ScottOliveira]

This has been answered in the Q&A Q15:

The vertical cylinder specified in G23 is not coupled with the ROBOT's orientation and is always vertical.

[Grim Tuesday]

This is highly worrisome. What if you are a 60" tall robot and you are tipped over (maybe you fall off the tower). Do you get a technical foul? By this ruling, yes, absolutely you do. I feel like that would be adding extreme insult to injury, though and I doubt intended.

[Nuttyman54]

Originally Posted by Grim Tuesday

This is highly worrisome. What if you are a 60" tall robot and you are tipped over (maybe you fall off the tower). Do you get a technical foul? By this ruling, yes, absolutely you do. I feel like that would be adding extreme insult to injury, though and I doubt intended.

In 2008, this was exactly the case, with similar rules for an 80" cylinder. If you fell over and were over 80", you got a penalty. It stunk, but that was the rules. If it isn't intentional however, I don't believe they will assess the TECHNICAL FOUL for it this year (yes, I know it says "continuous", but I'm hard pressed to think that referees would assess it as such, especially if you e-stop).

I might have missed it, but I also don't see the rule that says you can't force an opponent into a penalty like they have had in previous years...

[Grim Tuesday]

Originally Posted by Nuttyman54

In 2008, this was exactly the case, with similar rules for an 80" cylinder. If you fell over and were over 80", you got a penalty. It stunk, but that was the rules. If it isn't intentional however, I don't believe they will assess the TECHNICAL FOUL for it this year (yes, I know it says "continuous", but I'm hard pressed to think that referees would assess it as such, especially if you e-stop).

I might have missed it, but I also don't see the rule that says you can't force an opponent into a penalty like they have had in previous years...

Our team picked up on the lack of forced penalty rule as well.

I think this requires some Q&A/update based fixing with the forced penalty rule. Only thing I can think of that would cover it is the head refs ability to assign red and yellow cards at their discretion for egregious behavior.

Technically this year it is an equally valid strategy to stack discs on your opponents to force them into penalties. There are many teams that say 'if it is a legal way to score it's a way to score'. Other teams would say this is against their honor code (I know we would never do it). If this kind of thing isn't fixed by the regionals there is going to be lots of unnecessary controversy.


On the original subject of the cylinder, someone should make sure the GDC knows the full ramifications of the rule and doesn't want to make any changes to the 'if a robot is tipped' rule considering how tipping a robot now could potentially create a technical foul.

[lcoreyl]

I think this is far from obvious as well.

I looked back at 2010 breakaway and found an 84" cylinder that year. I really doubt the GDC wanted teams to become 84" ball blockers--they likely figured many people would tilt while climbing and would still need to reach up the 84" to the bar. that would imply they felt the cylinder tilts with the robot.

I also don't see how that picture clarifies the OP question since that robot is not clearly tilted.

I think I'm right at 50:50 on this one...

EDIT:
answered:

Q. Is the 54 inch envelope diameter (figure 3-5) orientation sensitive ie is its axis always vertical regardless of the robots axis ie such as when the robot climbs?

A. The vertical cylinder specified in [G23] is not coupled with the ROBOT'S orientation and is always vertical.


Q. Rule G22 places height restrictions "in relation to the ROBOT." Does this apply to G23 (horizontal restrictions)? When climbing the pyramid, extending an appendage "out" from the robot but "up" in space might extend past the cylinder if it is taken relative to the robot, as opposed to the ground.

A. The height requirement in [G22] is relative to the ROBOT. The horizontal volume requirement of [G23] is relative to the FIELD (see answer to Q15 ).

[Donut]

Originally Posted by lcoreyl

Q. Is the 54 inch envelope diameter (figure 3-5) orientation sensitive ie is its axis always vertical regardless of the robots axis ie such as when the robot climbs?

A. The vertical cylinder specified in [G23] is not coupled with the ROBOT'S orientation and is always vertical.


Q. Rule G22 places height restrictions "in relation to the ROBOT." Does this apply to G23 (horizontal restrictions)? When climbing the pyramid, extending an appendage "out" from the robot but "up" in space might extend past the cylinder if it is taken relative to the robot, as opposed to the ground.

A. The height requirement in [G22] is relative to the ROBOT. The horizontal volume requirement of [G23] is relative to the FIELD (see answer to Q15 ).

The way I'm interpreting these rulings would imply that a robot that intentionally flipped onto one side could legally extend to infinite height since the restrictions of G22 would now be rotated to constrain the robot horizontally relative to the field (this assumes the robot does not tip over in a location that would invoke G26).

[AllenGregoryIV]

Originally Posted by Donut

The way I'm interpreting these rulings would imply that a robot that intentionally flipped onto one side could legally extend to infinite height since the restrictions of G22 would now be rotated to constrain the robot horizontally relative to the field (this assumes the robot does not tip over in a location that would invoke G26).

I guess that depends on what they mean by "in relation to the ROBOT." if it's your bumpers than just by curling your robot so your wheels are 90 you can reach up to infinity.

Or maybe it's the max dimension at any time but that would only work if it were an 84" sphere and it's not. So I'm not sure how they want this to work, once you're curled up on the pyramid.

[Ty Tremblay]

In a related note. Does the 54 inch rule include the robot's bumpers?

Edit: Per Team Update #1, the bumpers are included.