G28, Q&A 83, and Noodling a Can Without Touching it

[ratdude747]

The only reason I could see having such a rule would be the potential risk of a tote being shot back by a robot and injuring a HP. However, due to the weight of the totes, method of scoring (and what sort of designs would generally be used) and the lack of defense this is beyond unlikely.

IMHO, the risk isn't enough to ruin the game over. Hopefully this is like the 2013 climbing size rule debate where the GDC's original statement was not what the GDC actually intended to convey and was cleared up in under a week.

[Ginger Power]

Originally Posted by ratdude747

The only reason I could see having such a rule would be the potential risk of a tote being shot back by a robot and injuring a HP. However, due to the weight of the totes, method of scoring (and what sort of designs would generally be used) and the lack of defense this is beyond unlikely.

IMHO, the risk isn't enough to ruin the game over. Hopefully this is like the 2013 climbing size rule debate where the GDC's original statement was not what the GDC actually intended to convey and was cleared up in under a week.

I desperately hope it is cleared up in less than a week. It's pretty obvious by this thread that this ruling is holding up many teams' strategies. Without clarification we can't know if arguably the easiest way to acquire totes efficiently is even legal. It puts build teams in limbo because they don't know if mechanisms they've been prototyping will be allowed. If it isn't cleared up within a day or 2 I for one will be frustrated.

[Breakaway3937]

Originally Posted by Ginger Power

I desperately hope it is cleared up in less than a week. It's pretty obvious by this thread that this ruling is holding up many teams' strategies. Without clarification we can't know if arguably the easiest way to acquire totes efficiently is even legal. It puts build teams in limbo because they don't know if mechanisms they've been prototyping will be allowed. If it isn't cleared up within a day or 2 I for one will be frustrated.

I truly believe we will have our answer tomorrow. I think the GDC knows the huge implications that this can have on the designs of several robots due to the fact that the totes nose dive out of the chute. They do not want this game to be overly complicated.

[MrJohnston]

When I read the rules, I got the distinct impression that the actual purpose of the tote chute was to make sure that totes were, in fact, dropped awkwardly. In my few years in FRC, its always been most efficient/easy to load the "whatevers" directly by the human player. By creating a rule that disallows robots taking the totes directly from the chute, I just figured it created a little different challenge.... My team took the rules as written and has been designing around that "challenge." Frankly, I kind of like it: Suddenly the importance of righting a flipped tote becomes rather important.

[jvriezen]

Just saw this thread and haven't read it all, but I can see a concern about and bots touching totes while in the chute. A nice loader sounds good, but think about the bad cases. If the tote is partially in the chute and a bot imparts a force in any direction other than continuing its path out of the chute (up, down, sideways) there is a reasonable risk the chute/door mechanism will be damaged, because totes are much more robust than other games pieces we've used and will transit that force quite well.

Imagine a bot rushing to receive a tote, and the door being opened early, and the bot ramming the tote from the side as the tote is half way out of the door.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by jvriezen

Imagine a bot rushing to receive a tote, and the door being opened early, and the bot ramming the tote from the side as the tote is half way out of the door.

There's a very reasonable interpretation of "control" which would not be in effect for the scenario you described, so I am fairly confident that is not the reason this ruling was made.

[Gdeaver]

I feel like our team is in purgatory. If a narrow interpretation of G27 stands, we will be forced into engineering hell designing an active mechanism to load totes from the player station. We have studied the tote fall and can meet Narrow G27 but, It requires a nasty complex mechanism. On top of that the ref is going to hell with us. The ref would have to be standing right at the station wall watching very intensely as we drop the totes. Can not take their eyes off of our robot for a second or possibly miss a G27. Our robot will block the view of the tote at the most critical point in the trajectory of the tote. We had to use camera freeze frame to confirm G27 compliance in all tote fall geometries. This would be a totally subjective call by the ref to nail us with a G27. There is always the possibility That in bad driver and human player actions we could incur a visible G27. So what does the ref do to enforce narrow G27 interpretation? If the q+a answer is reversed we may be back on track to tote loading heaven. (not really, It is still complex)

[IronicDeadBird]

Originally Posted by Gdeaver

I feel like our team is in purgatory. If a narrow interpretation of G27 stands, we will be forced into engineering hell designing an active mechanism to load totes from the player station. We have studied the tote fall and can meet Narrow G27 but, It requires a nasty complex mechanism. On top of that the ref is going to hell with us. The ref would have to be standing right at the station wall watching very intensely as we drop the totes. Can not take their eyes off of our robot for a second or possibly miss a G27. Our robot will block the view of the tote at the most critical point in the trajectory of the tote. We had to use camera freeze frame to confirm G27 compliance in all tote fall geometries. This would be a totally subjective call by the ref to nail us with a G27. There is always the possibility That in bad driver and human player actions we could incur a visible G27. So what does the ref do to enforce narrow G27 interpretation? If the q+a answer is reversed we may be back on track to tote loading heaven. (not really, It is still complex)

Woah there man we can work this out. Take a breath. Let's not assume the worst. Nobody here is your enemy and were all here to help.

[Paul Copioli]

Originally Posted by Gdeaver

I feel like our team is in purgatory. If a narrow interpretation of G27 stands, we will be forced into engineering hell designing an active mechanism to load totes from the player station. We have studied the tote fall and can meet Narrow G27 but, It requires a nasty complex mechanism. On top of that the ref is going to hell with us. The ref would have to be standing right at the station wall watching very intensely as we drop the totes. Can not take their eyes off of our robot for a second or possibly miss a G27. Our robot will block the view of the tote at the most critical point in the trajectory of the tote. We had to use camera freeze frame to confirm G27 compliance in all tote fall geometries. This would be a totally subjective call by the ref to nail us with a G27. There is always the possibility That in bad driver and human player actions we could incur a visible G27. So what does the ref do to enforce narrow G27 interpretation? If the q+a answer is reversed we may be back on track to tote loading heaven. (not really, It is still complex)

Yep. I really think the GDC is trying to avoid this type of stuff and we will get clarification soon.

Too bad that during FRC season 1 day is like 1 week.

[MrForbes]

We kind of assumed that tote loading from the human player would be the default method for less capable teams, and are designing our robot to mainly load from the landfill, since the other two robots on our alliance may need both human loading stations. So, this thing doesn't affect our robot design. But the implications might cause us to rethink this.

I hope they figure it out soon, it sounds like this issue is messing with a lot of teams.

[EricLeifermann]

Originally Posted by MrForbes

We kind of assumed that tote loading from the human player would be the default method for less capable teams, and are designing our robot to mainly load from the landfill, since the other two robots on our alliance may need both human loading stations. So, this thing doesn't affect our robot design. But the implications might cause us to rethink this.

I hope they figure it out soon, it sounds like this issue is messing with a lot of teams.

I disagree I think there are pretty advanced strategies that can use the human loader that require advance manufacturing ability.

A well balanced alliance is going to consist of both hp and floor loading robos.

[IronicDeadBird]

It wouldn't be beneficial at all for higher level teams to augment lower teams that just doesn't make sense. This game is absolutely about one robots ability to score on its own not a team. The gdc needs to take care with this they might kneecap teams pretty hard.

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

OK so looking at the rule as written, even without the Q&A clarification, these actions are, by the letter of the rule, illegal. Here is the Rule as copied from the manual:

I agree with Paul, this rule as currently written is pretty cut and dry. Robots grabbing totes that are still in contact with the chute is illegal.

There's been a lot of discussion here of whether or not this "should" be illegal. I agree with the points some people have brought up about how this current ruling would negatively impact game play. That being said, there are other factors in play that might be more important.

1. This is the rule that has been in play for all teams for the past 9 crucial days of the build season. Many teams may have already finalized designs that would be impacted by this rule change. In general I loathe any sort of design affecting mid season rule change, unless it is precipitated by a safety issue.
2. I'm only guessing when it comes to the intent of this rule, but I think this rule was put into play to prevent a robot from accidentally forcing a tote back up the chute into the face of a Human Player. If a Robot is designed to suck a tote out of the chute with high speed intake wheels, an accidentally reversed wheel could easily lead to tote being shot back out the chute in a dangerous manner.

So, the GDC has a tough decision to make here. Leave the rule as it is, which means game play might not be as exciting as it could be, or make a change that would be both design effecting and potentially unsafe. Not an easy call at all.

In terms of the safety issue, I find it somewhat strange that they would suddenly be worrying about human players getting hit by game pieces, when last year we were allowed to shoot giant heavy balls out of the field, directly at Human Players, volunteers, and spectators. On the other hand, you can never fault anyone for getting serious about safety.

Here are some possible suggestions that might balance some of the competing interests here.

1. Add a back door to the chute and don't let Robots touch a tote until the back door is shut. This back door would prevent totes from being shot back towards the Human Player and would eliminate pretty much any safety concern. It would make human loading slower, but at least robots could still suck the totes out like many people in this thread desire. The problem with this solution is that it would require an engineering change to the fields, something that may or may not be feasible at this point.

2. Let robots touch totes that are still touching the chute, provided that the robot is completely at rest. This would prevent the case where a tote hits a spinning wheel and goes flying backwards. Of course the problem with this is that it becomes something that refs have to watch and enforce.

[MrForbes]

Originally Posted by EricLeifermann

I disagree I think there are pretty advanced strategies that can use the human loader that require advance manufacturing ability.

I agree. But I was referring to those teams with limited resources, being more likely to depend on only the human loading area to get TOTES. Since two of these robots would take up all the human loading stations, we need to be able to get TOTES from the landfill, if we want to maximize our alliance's score.

A well balanced alliance is going to consist of both hp and floor loading robos.

I agree! Unfortunately, during qualifying matches, we can't pick which teams we're with...so we need to make our robot so it can score well with the teams we have on our alliance.

[Breakaway3937]

Originally Posted by Karthik

I agree with Paul, this rule as currently written is pretty cut and dry. Robots grabbing totes that are still in contact with the chute is illegal.

There's been a lot of discussion here of whether or not this "should" be illegal. I agree with the points some people have brought up about how this current ruling would negatively impact game play. That being said, there are other factors in play that might be more important.

I think the main discussion is the definition of control. Does a tote sliding into a robot control? The GDC just hasn't defined the word and are making rulings off an undefined term.