Entanglement part II

[RyanMcE]

Ok, my last post went bad real quick (mostly my fault) so I'm going to try to keep this one more to the point so I can get some useful feedback.

Here is The Video of the play in question.

I have five (5) questions. When replying I would appreciate answers in order with numbers and (optional) justification to make everything easier to read. Here are the questions:

(1) Were the two robots (469 and 93) entangled?
(2) If yes to (1), which robot initiated the entanglement?
(3) If yes to (1), which robot (if any) presented an entanglement hazard?
(4) If yes to (2), should that robot have been disabled?
(5) If yes to (2) and/or (3), should that team have been disqualified?

[RyanMcE]

Now I will reply to my own message, because I am just that cool.

(1) Answer:Yes.
Justification: I base my answer on the fact that FIRST told us not to be lawyers this year. To me, that means interpreting things as they would be interpreted by normal people, not nit-pickers. With that in mind,
a. The two robots sure looked entangled to me.
b. The announcer also thought they were entangled.
c. When I show this video to random people walking down the street and ask "are these two robots entangled" most will answered yes.

(2) Answer: Team 469 initiated the entanglement.
Justification: Team 469 put their claw into team 93's basket. The basket did not leap out and grab 469's hook. The actions that led to the entanglement were those of 469, not 93.

(3) Answer: Team 93 was a greater entanglement hazard.
Justification: If I were to drag team 469's claw along random robots, it would not likely become entangled. If I were to drag team 93's net across random robots, it would likely become entangled.

(4a) Answer: Yes, team 469 should have been disabled after getting out of the entanglement.
Justification: My justification has to do with my interpretation of the word "intentional." Look for an upcoming post abut that.

(5a) Answer: No, team 93 should not have been disqualified because of the lack applicable of entanglement hazard rules.
(5b) Answer: 469 was able to end the entanglement, so disabling would have been sufficient, disqualification in this case was not neccesary [this is assuming a previously clean entanglement record. If a past history existed, disqualification may have been in order].

[Ryan M.]

Originally Posted by RyanMcE

(1) Were the two robots (469 and 93) entangled?

Yes.

Originally Posted by RyanMcE

(2) If yes to (1), which robot initiated the entanglement?

Can't tell the number, but the one's that not the hopper-bot.

Originally Posted by RyanMcE

(3) If yes to (1), which robot (if any) presented an entanglement hazard?

The hopper-bot.

Originally Posted by RyanMcE

(4) If yes to (2), should that robot have been disabled?

Possibly. It might be different from another angle, but it looked like the one robot stopped and intentionally put it's arm down into the hopper of the other robot and then backed up.

Originally Posted by RyanMcE

(5) If yes to (2) and/or (3), should that team have been disqualified?

No. It was too close for a measure that extreme.

[Jack Jones]

Originally Posted by RyanMcE

Ok, my last post went bad real quick (mostly my fault) so I'm going to try to keep this one more to the point so I can get some useful feedback.

Here is The Video of the play in question.

I have five (5) questions. When replying I would appreciate answers in order with numbers and (optional) justification to make everything easier to read. Here are the questions:

(1) Were the two robots (469 and 93) entangled?
(2) If yes to (1), which robot initiated the entanglement?
(3) If yes to (1), which robot (if any) presented an entanglement hazard?
(4) If yes to (2), should that robot have been disabled?
(5) If yes to (2) and/or (3), should that team have been disqualified?

(1) Yes
(2) Neither
(3) 93
(4) Moot Point
(5) Neither team was at fault

BTW - I was standing 12 feet away on the grandstand sidelines. My heart swelled with pride in FIRST when 469 righted 93 so that both could go about the business of playing the game.

[KenWittlief]

without going through your list (I have no short term memory :^)

clearly the two bots ended up entangled

and the bot with the hook/claws tried to use them for something they were not intended for, to deflect 18 falling 3 lb balls

if you freeze frame the event and take time to reason it though, it would go something like:

A. I gotta stop those balls from falling into that net somehow
B. cant cancel out the laws of physics and stop them from falling
C. dont have a 2X ball to deflect them with
D. I will hold my hook/claw right over their net and see what happens when those 18 balls fall on us

ok, unfreeze time and we know the rest of the story, claws caught in net - anyone surprized?

our bot had a hook and suction cups at the end of its arm, and Im sure if we let it get pushed into that netBot we would have snagged something too - in fact, if we had jabbed the end of our arm into just about ANY bot Im sure we could have come up with a hook full of cables or wires or pnuematic hoses or something

looking back I think this was a poor judgement call on the part of the hook-bot - they did not deflect any balls that I can tell from the video, and they risked damaging the net-bot and entangling both bots (nobody WANTS to get entangled with another bot for the whole match)

but now the hard part, do I think this was a blantently careless or reckless act? I dont think so - this looks like one of those worse case scenearios where the worse possible thing did happen, the bots got tangled for a while.

I think the best thing that can come from this is an example of why the rules of engagement need to be more carefully defined, as is being attempted in other threads, so the refs can look at results and make a call based on that

ie, 90% of the bots this year had hooks or claws - new rule: you put your hook or claw into someone elses bot and become entangled, or rip out material/wires/ cable and you are penalized for 'hooking' :^)

[Chris Hibner]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

looking back I think this was a poor judgement call on the part of the hook-bot -

I just want to make one comment: 469 doesn't have a hook. 93's net got caught on a pneumatic fitting.

If 469 had a hook, I would agree with your statement. However I have trouble placing blame when the robot gets caught on a pneumatic fitting, bolt, tie-wrap, or anything else that is a "standard" part on a robot. I believe that if 469 did the same thing to team 71, 33, 45, or 175, nothing would've gotten tangled. In fact, 469 did a similar move to 177 with no entanglement in a different match.

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

this looks like one of those worse case scenearios where the worse possible thing did happen, the bots got tangled for a while.

This I completely agree with.

[wizco]

My judgement is this. Mr.Netty Mc neterson should have realized that the net could get caught in a robots arm, so protective lexan could have been placed on the sides of the frame and still have the same functionality of that net. LAS guerillas was playing defense to their advantage and it worked.

[Pin Man]

I don't know really... That's a tough question... I wouldn't have disabled a robot though... I think it was the robot (I can't tell the number) that put their arm in and tried to block the balls fault definitly... But I don't think it was worth disqualifying them...

We did the same thing in our first match on day 1 (match 7) to 564... They opened to catch the balls falling and we took the double multiplier and tried to stuff them... Lucky for them they could close there basket and did when we went for the stuff... Our hook is located on our arm and it got cought when they tried to close... After hooked they pulled us and tipped us... They still gave balls to their HP but could not go very far without dragging us... We tied in that match, 80 to 80... Here is the link to the match... http://www.soap.circuitrunners.com/2...ew/new_007.wmv You can not see it that well but it shows it hooked and all...

[Tyler Olds]

Originally Posted by RyanMcE

Ok, my last post went bad real quick (mostly my fault) so I'm going to try to keep this one more to the point so I can get some useful feedback.

Here is The Video of the play in question.

I have five (5) questions. When replying I would appreciate answers in order with numbers and (optional) justification to make everything easier to read. Here are the questions:

(1) Were the two robots (469 and 93) entangled?
(2) If yes to (1), which robot initiated the entanglement?
(3) If yes to (1), which robot (if any) presented an entanglement hazard?
(4) If yes to (2), should that robot have been disabled?
(5) If yes to (2) and/or (3), should that team have been disqualified?

1. yes
2. 469
3. 93 (we did)
4. Possiably, however if they were diabled we would have still been stuck
5. My oppinion would be too biased and one sided, so i guess you can guess my answer. However i do understand why there was no call.

[Sean Schuff]

What Tyler said.

And, poop happens. Like I said before, I'll take exciting, sorta-full-contact, nobody's-guess-who-will-win over ho-hum, boring, no-surprises-or-excitement any day!!

And Jack Jones is right, it's a moot point. We'll come back next year wiser than we were this year. Hey!! We learned something!!! Isn't that really the ponit??!!

Sean

[Ben Lauer]

Originally Posted by RyanMcE

Ok, my last post went bad real quick (mostly my fault) so I'm going to try to keep this one more to the point so I can get some useful feedback.

Here is The Video of the play in question.

I have five (5) questions. When replying I would appreciate answers in order with numbers and (optional) justification to make everything easier to read. Here are the questions:

(1) Were the two robots (469 and 93) entangled?
(2) If yes to (1), which robot initiated the entanglement?
(3) If yes to (1), which robot (if any) presented an entanglement hazard?
(4) If yes to (2), should that robot have been disabled?
(5) If yes to (2) and/or (3), should that team have been disqualified?

1: Yes
2: 469
3: 93
4: No, there was no need for a disable. Because 469 initaited the intanglement, but 93 had the hazard, they would effectively "cancel out" and have offsetting penalties. The only other option would have been to disable both, but this would have been rediculous because that would only make the teams more upset, and would take away some of the fun.
5: moot

One more thing after I completed the "questionare."

Why did you feel the need to post this? Do you want people to agree with you and change the out come of the Championship, get everyone else back in Atlanta, and replay the match?
Or, do you just want to feel as if you won something? Do you want to be the one that ruins your teams reputation by being "that guy who complained until he got it his way?"

Why did you start another post bound to become negitive?
Why can't you just participate in the threads that are postitive like "Congratulation ______" or "Thanks ______" or "Best _______".

and thus, I have a question for you Mr. McE, Why do people come to the Chief Delphi forums? Is it to hear about the good things other people in FIRST have done, is it to get tips of building, and see others designs, is it to get in touch with other people who have the same intrests, or is it to complain about ways we feel have been injusticed?

Please... Keep it positive!

[RyanMcE]

Originally Posted by Ben Lauer

1: Yes
Why did you feel the need to post this? Do you want people to agree with you and change the out come of the Championship, get everyone else back in Atlanta, and replay the match?
Or, do you just want to feel as if you won something? Do you want to be the one that ruins your teams reputation by being "that guy who complained until he got it his way?"

Not at all. I wanted to know if I was way off base in thinking hat these teams were entangled that something should have been done about it. Since the referees did nothing, there clearly were at least some people who disagreed with me and I wanted a reality check. As to the three reasons you list, please!

Originally Posted by Ben Lauer

Why did you start another post bound to become negitive?

I don't think this one is bound to become negative, and indeed it hasn't (unless this post is considered negative).

Originally Posted by Ben Lauer

Why can't you just participate in the threads that are postitive like "Congratulation ______" or "Thanks ______" or "Best _______".

Because those posts are utterly pointless. My grand plan here is to try to make FIRST the best organization it can be, and I think that by getting rules to be more consistent while discouraging battlebots-like play will make FIRST better. This post is a way to test the waters, to see if there is any chance that the rules and their enforcement could be made more consistent. Because so many people agree in the basics (1,2, and 3), I have hope.

Originally Posted by Ben Lauer

and thus, I have a question for you Mr. McE, Why do people come to the Chief Delphi forums? Is it to hear about the good things other people in FIRST have done, is it to get tips of building, and see others designs, is it to get in touch with other people who have the same intrests, or is it to complain about ways we feel have been injusticed?

People come to CD for all sorts of reasons. Many people come to pat each other on the back and make each other feel good. Many others come here to ask technical questions, find out what other FIRSTlings think, and get guidance or help. I came here this year to point out to others that I think an injustice was carried out on the Gallileo field.

Now, to turn your ine of questioning back at you, why do you come here? Is it to criticize other people's reasons for being here?

Originally Posted by Ben Lauer

Please... Keep it positive!

No, no, no! Please keep it real! What use are these forums if we ignore problems and fail to address them?

[Jack Jones]

Originally Posted by Jack Jones

... I was standing 12 feet away on the grandstand sidelines...

Not that it matters much now, but after reviewing the

Video

I shot, I'd say that #93 became the agressor near the end.

[Tyler Olds]

Originally Posted by Jack Jones

Not that it matters much now, but after reviewing the

Video

I shot, I'd say that #93 became the agressor ners the end.

Hey we got to have some fun in the match!

And um wtf was with that vid man, made me laugh my *** off!