[YMTC]: Do DISCS a robot is touching invalidate a CLIMB?

[Grim Tuesday]

Based on 2016's Q&A, which notably hasn't been answered yet. I was expecting it to be in tonight's team update but haven't seen anything relating to it:

Q621 Q. If a robot is supported from the lowest rung of the pyramid, but its lowest point is in contact with a disc on the floor, not in possession of the robot, such that if the disc was removed, no part of the robot would be in contact with the floor. Does contact with the disc invalidate the climb?

We've seen often over the season that a robot touching or being supported by a disc has their CLIMB ruled invalid.

It makes sense for this to be the case but I can't seem to find where this is actually defined in the manual:

3.1.5.2 defines the CLIMB process. Here is the full text of the rule in question:

A ROBOT has CLIMBED its PYRAMID if it contacts the PYRAMID and/or the floor (Level 0) in sequential order (Level 0, 1, 2, 3) during ascent and no more than two (2) Levels simultaneously.


If a CLIMB is considered unacceptable (e.g. a ROBOT has touched non-adjacent Levels or more than two (2) Levels at a time), a Referee will indicate a rejected CLIMB by turning the offending ROBOT’S PLAYER STATION LED strings yellow. The ROBOT will be ineligible for CLIMB points unless and until it begins a new CLIMB from the floor, Level 0.

A robot being supported (fully or partially) by a DISC has touched the levels in sequential order, and has not touched more than two simultaneously. In addition, assuming their CLIMB is otherwise valid, by virtue of being supported by the DISC and not the floor, they are not touching level 0. Thus, the entirety of their ROBOT is in LEVEL 1 and it is a valid CLIMB.

Q623 Q. Do DISCS under the active control of a ROBOT count towards the limits defined by the PLAYING CONFIGURATION? STARTING CONFIGURATION?

Q623 proves that DISCS under a robot's control are not part of the PLAYING configuration so why should they count towards whether or not the ROBOT is in LEVEL 1? In addition, most of the time this happens, the discs in question are not under the active control of the ROBOT and I don't think anyone could make a valid argument that discs not under active control should be considered part of the ROBOT.

Finally, we have G16:

G16
TEAMS and/or ROBOTS may not employ strategies that use DISCS to either aid or inhibit a ROBOT CLIMB.

Violation: TECHNICAL FOUL. If the DISC(S) inhibits an opponent’s CLIMB attempt, the opponent ROBOT’S ALLIANCE will be granted credit for a Level 3 CLIMB at the end of the MATCH.

In the case I am talking about, the team certainly is not "employing strategies" that use DISCS to aid their CLIMB. The DISC is simply there, it is not part of their strategy. Secondly, if referees were to call this penalty on teams supported by DISCS, then it would be a technical foul for something completely incidental and not caused directly by a team, which I highly doubt is the intended result.

One remaining question is whether Ultimate Ascent follows the transitive property, which is I suppose the root question. Does a disc touching the floor mean the robot is touching the floor? Does a disc touching a robot touching another robot mean robot-to-robot contact? Nowhere is this defined and here is where we must make the call. If indeed the transitive property does apply to Ultimate Ascent, how far should we take it? Does it apply to cases like 3 robots (ie red robot 1 touching PYRAMID, red robot 2 touching 1, blue robot touches red robot 2?) Transitive climb interference? Or does it apply only to discs? Based on the current rules, I don't think it applies to anything.

I am left to conclude that robot's that are supported by or touching DISCS are in fact making valid CLIMBS. Did I miss something?

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Grim Tuesday

I am left to conclude that robot's that are supported by or touching DISCS are in fact making valid CLIMBS. Did I miss something?

It's the same as a robot supporting another robot—it doesn't matter where the supporting robot is, as long as the supported robot has completed the climb correctly and ended up in the correct position at scoring time.

This is a departure from previous years, but that's fine. Anything that eliminates the need for a referee to try to determine support is probably a net positive. (Especially considering that referees have to assess every climb sequence anyway.)

[Taylor]

If the disk is removed and the robot has a valid climb, then give it 10 points.

[lemiant]

Guys. Strategies that use discs to climb or to prevent teams from climbing are prohibited.

[Mark McLeod]

It was ruled a valid climb in NYC

[Steven Donow]

Originally Posted by lemiant

Guys. Strategies that use discs to climb or to prevent teams from climbing are prohibited.

This was the ruling at Bridgewater,the match that probably made 2016 question this. The disc was simply between their robot and the floor,and it was ruled invalid. The disc was flat on the ground though, not as extreme as what Mark posted above.

[Jon Stratis]

It's a tough decision to figure out when a team is employing a strategy, versus when the presence of a disc is coincidence. Were I a ref (and I'll never be a ref, you have my word on that!), I would take into account past behavior of the robot/team... if they have many successful level 1 climbs without discs under their robot, and nothing obvious has changed, then I would probably consider it a coincidence. If, however, they had issues with the climb (not always getting all the way up, getting "stuck" with part of the robot on the ground, etc) in the past, it might be considered a strategy. If they spend time moving the disc, then it's a strategy.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by Mark McLeod

It was ruled a valid climb in NYC
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/img...70b5dfb0_l.jpg

This was nuts. But note that this is a different process than most of the incidents in which discs are supporting robots. (Whether the difference matters is another issue.)

Most times, robots drive on top of a disc that is on the floor and remain supported by it in the climb (or "climb"). The NYC photo was thought to be a robot that climbed without contacting a disc, and then an opposing human player threw one that wedged underneath it. In the latter case, your other options are to discount the climb, punishing the blue alliance for the actions of the red, or technical foul the red alliance for an action that's unlikely to be strategic (but might because one if the climb was invalidated). The former situation doesn't have the 'one alliance versus the other' issue; it's more about whether the disc is part of the floor/Level 0.

[Grim Tuesday]

Q621 Q. If a robot is supported from the lowest rung of the pyramid, but its lowest point is in contact with a disc on the floor, not in possession of the robot, such that if the disc was removed, no part of the robot would be in contact with the floor. Does contact with the disc invalidate the climb?
A. We will not rule on hypothetical situations; however, Level 0 does not include DISCS. Provided the Head Referee has determined the DISC has not aided the CLIMB per [G16], the CLIMB is acceptable.


Answer came in a few days ago. I wonder how they will determine whether or not the disc aided the climb. It almost seems that the GDC is misinterpreting their own rule; saying that it would be invalid if the disc aided the climb, not that it would only be invalid if the disc was part of their strategy. Maybe I'll ask another Q&A.

[Chris Fultz]

if the robot drove up onto the disc and then did the climb, then the disc aided the climb - it reduced the climb required by the robot by 1-1/2".

[Grim Tuesday]

Originally Posted by Chris Fultz

if the robot drove up onto the disc and then did the climb, then the disc aided the climb - it reduced the climb required by the robot by 1-1/2".

Agreed. However, G16 is only violated if a team employs a strategy using discs to climb. I don't think the incidental disc would be considered part of the strategy.