pic: YMTC: Is 41 hanging?

[jonathan lall]

Originally Posted by maxlobovsky

awwww, comon, that really sucks. They totally deserved the hang. They were emphasizing the idea of following the meaning of the rules, not being lawyers, and yet this is the kinda call they give.

Oh they definitely deserved to hang, but the robot broke and could not meet the requirements to hang in the (I would definitely say correct) judgement of the refs; the fact that the chin-up device works and almost all of the weight is supported does not mean the robot is hanging. So many people take cheap shots at 'lawyers' here because of incidents like this one and also instances where a team comes up with an idea that others didn't because the others didn't properly read the rules. I hear the University of Western Ontario has a 6-year honours engineering/law school course, that some people here might want to take .

Another aside: In my opinion it is completely acceptable and neccesary to come down on the refs when they make an improper call. It's also important to prevent it from happening again. It is not appropriate to disrespect them or their authority, and I think a lot of people do not see the difference. It has to be kept in mind also that the refs are volunteering in most cases and want to be as fair as possible.

[Wetzel]

You are all correct with the fact that the belt is not supporting the robot. However, you forget the rest of the definition of hanging.

HANGING – A ROBOT is considered HANGING from the Pull-Up Bar if it is directly SUPPORTED by the horizontal bar and is not touching the carpet, platforms, or goals.

Therefor, it does not count. You've got to remember ALL the rules, not just the ones that were discussed a lot.

Wetzel

[Yan Wang]

I would say they were hanging... just because that rule quoted above is extremely narrow and should be revised. In any game, molecules (lol) from the robot's wheel/tread will be lost due to friction from the carpet... there will be banging, ramming into the other robots, etc, and some fragments will be left on the field... Just look at all the pieces/flakes under the ramp from last year's stack attack game. So based on that rule above, I would either have to say, no robot can hang, or I could say that if it's a situation like team 41, I'd count them as hanging. So what if a piece falls off. But too late to change that now

[Jeff Rodriguez]

Originally Posted by Yan Wang

I would say they were hanging... just because that rule quoted above is extremely narrow and should be revised. In any game, molecules (lol) from the robot's wheel/tread will be lost due to friction from the carpet... there will be banging, ramming into the other robots, etc, and some fragments will be left on the field... Just look at all the pieces/flakes under the ramp from last year's stack attack game. So based on that rule above, I would either have to say, no robot can hang, or I could say that if it's a situation like team 41, I'd count them as hanging. So what if a piece falls off. But too late to change that now

If a molecule falls off then it's not part of the robot anymore and doesn't count.
In the picture, the belt is still on the robot and touching the platform, so they don't count.
"Don't be a lawyer", or something like that.

[white_ChocOlat8]

Something very similar happened in one of our matches actually, except it was with a chain and the refs called it a no hang. But it was a good call because if I remember correctly the rules state that if any part of your robot is touching.

[Bob92]

I say no hang. They are touching. How would you feel if you were the other alliance and they counted. I don't think they deserved it because every other team had to build their robot to withstand hits and things breaking so that they would not be touching the platform.

[MisterX]

Atleast all of the refs' decisions are uniform. Every example that has so far been given of similar incidents they were ruled as a no hang as well this one for 41. If half of those were counted and the other half were not then I would be cocerned, however, with all of the judges seeming to agree that it is a no hang, then that must be the rule and not up to interpretation.

[Smrtman5]

Yea, that match really did suck. We sheared our left drive pully and we managed to get up and hang with only our right side operational. Cruel twist of fate. Luckily we got someone to the machine shop to make another timing pulley from some Al bar stock. In the meantime, we used the dremel to make new notches!
Thanks to whomever took that pic!

[MOEmaniac]

I say give them the hang because is that tread really supporting any weight. If they believed that it was then they should have taken the tread away and seen if the robot would have fallen. Its like sayin OMG there a little piece of string that is touching the platform and its supporting weight . They seriously should have been given the hang.

[kevin.li.rit]

Originally Posted by MOEmaniac

I say give them the hang because is that tread really supporting any weight. If they believed that it was then they should have taken the tread away and seen if the robot would have fallen. Its like sayin OMG there a little piece of string that is touching the platform and its supporting weight . They seriously should have been given the hang.

Looks like that white nub of a piston or something is supporting weight.

[Jeff Waegelin]

Based on the way we called the rules at the Detroit Regional, I would say that is not hanging. Yes, the robot is supported entirely by the bar. BUT, a part of the robot is touching the platform. You can try to argue that it's not supporting anything... but it doesn't need to be supporting to discount the hang; just touching.

[jonathan lall]

This is strange. It has been established already that, according to the rules, if the robot is still touching it is not hanging. Furthermore, even if that part wasn't in the rules, one could deduce whether the robot was hanging or not with a little common sense:

1) The tread is still part of the robot, being partially attached, and all.
2) The tread is supporting its own weight.

The fact that the tread doesn't weigh very much does not preclude the fact that part of the robot is supported by the ground. Sure it's unfortunate that they couldn't hang, but that doesn't warrant them getting 50 points. For those of you that say you could remove the tread to see if the robot would hang, I implore you to read this again and think about it.

[Max Lobovsky]

I understand the wording of the rules and all, it just seems pretty dumb that if they had had a worse malfunction where the tread came completely off, they would have got more points. They should have designed their robot to break more spectaularly, i guess.

[Wetzel]

Originally Posted by Coffeeism

Looks like that white nub of a piston or something is supporting weight.

That white nub is completly in the air.


People, will you please read all the posts before throwing in your two cents.
Also, please read the rules before commenting on them

Thank you.
Wetzel

[Ryan F.]

No, hang, as the rules state no part of the robot may be touching the ground. Though, if I was on 47 I probably would be feeling very different. Though the rules state it. I'm a little surprised at the ruling. The refs at the midwest regional seemed to be extremely leniant about hanging. I saw a couple of robots hanging on the very inner part of the connecction between the vertical and horizontal bar, which was ruled illegal in other regionals.