|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: "Load Bearing Surface"
Quote:
The comments regarding a baseball short stop being "in the neighborhood" are amusing but irrelevant. We are not playing baseball, and MLB rules do not apply. A single analogy with baseball was used to try to help clarify a single point of discussion with regard to the 2005 "Triple Play" rules. But everyone understands that is all that it was - a single analogy. Don't push it too hard, beyond its' intended use. Lucien, I honestly don't know where you are trying to go with this. Within just a few paragraphs, you urge the referees to ignore rules violations unless they are so blatent that they cannot be ignored and adopt some completely undefined "neighborhood" policy for determining the robot/loading zone condition, yet then you admonish everyone that "rules are NOT to be broken." The logic of many of the statements in this thread eludes me. FIRST made it clear in the Manual released at kick off what constituted the Loading Zone (see above reference). They made it clear on 1/11 that being "in" the Loading Zone required "touching" the loading zone, and that you needed to be blatently clear about touching the zone, with the robot drive system or base. The only thing I can see as a possible source of confusion is the determination of what is the robot "base." That was clarified later, which is what everyone seems so worked up about in this and other threads. But I have to ask, if there was so much confusion about what would be considered the "base" of the robot and this was such a big deal, why did everyone wait to actually ask FIRST about it until 2/16/2005 (the first time this shows up in the Q&A system)? One would imagine that if so many teams were really confused by this, and if the determination of the answer would lead to drastic impacts on their robot designs, some one would have asked about it much, much sooner in the process. I have to wonder, is this really a catastrophic issue for the majority of teams? Or is it really an issue for a very small number of teams, who just happen to be very vocal? (I looked through the threads to see how many teams were represented vs. repeated to reach my own conclusion, I will let you reach yours). -dave |
|
#2
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: "Load Bearing Surface"
To all the partof this rule that really upset me I don't think has been truely addressed, Dave's comments above made me feel the need to point this out. Most of you seem to be talking more about the human player loading zone which isn't where I see the problem.
In Team update #8 on 2/4/04 FIRST added the following line to <G14> which in my opinion drastically changed the rules of the game: If a robot touches a loading station tetra before it is in the LOADING ZONE, the offending alliance will be assessed a 10-point penalty and the tetra will not be scored. Prior to this update there was no mention in the rules of a robot having to be in the auto loading station's loading zone to acquire a tetra. Don't flame claiming otherwise I was keeping track of this for some very specific reasons. This was a strategy and robot design changing rule in my One strategy I propsed because of this was a stationary robot that could grab tetra's and score them with out moving just by using outriggers. Had we gone that route our strategy and robot design would suddenly become illegal with little build time left to change this. To me that is the biggest issue with this rule. FIRST should not make new rules that have an impact as large as this during the build season. Pete |
|
#3
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: "Load Bearing Surface"
This is an interesting question:
: 1785 Section: 4.3.3 Status: Unanswered Date Posted: 3/1/2005 Q: re Q&A 1773: May robots who permanently deploy and then never move base extenders such as wheelie bars ALSO declare a 28x38 box like the robots who flop (since these are functionally the same thing)? I didn't ask it - I just thought it was interesting.. I don't think they're trying to skirt around rules, but it's a fair question. Every new answer that FIRST provides seems to open up another discussion. I think the whole issue of being "in" may affect few teams in the grand scope of things. But, I think bottom line is that people want to know exactly how refs will make their calls and throw penalties. Must they see it with their own eyes? What if they happen to miss the touch for whatever reason (blocked view, not paying attention, short staffed, etc)? Etc.. etc... I'm sure it'll be one of the first things addressed at driver's meetings.. |
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: "Load Bearing Surface"
Quote:
Since 2/28, tipover bots were allowed as long as the team makes an arrangement with the ref about what is considered "in" the 28x38 box. Those of us with "expanders" are worried because we have not been allowed to redfine our box. Quote:
I'm sure there are some who are not vocal and who are just hoping it gets sorted out. I'm sure there are some who have not even read these forums and who missed the Q&A, and who are reading only the updates.I thought the point was not how many teams were affected, but an ongoing effort to make the rules and game simple, easy to understand, consistent, and grandmother-friendly.... Ken |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: "Load Bearing Surface"
Quote:
Off of the specific rule and onto "where I was trying to go with this," I was simply trying to say that if the rule and the enforcement turn out to be different then we are sending a wrong message to the FIRST community. The wrong message is that we, as a society, must not worry so much about the rules as much as the enforcement of the rules. This is a great time to remind everyone that I'm throwing pebbles here and not rocks ... I drive 63 in a 55 because I'm aware of the enforcement of the law while violating the law itself ... I've got another 5,389 rules that I routinely violate because I know the enforcement ... violating a few of them that start with "Thou shall" or "Thou shall not" might result in me residing in a place that I'd rather not be. It's true and am embarrassed to admit it! The reason that I discuss societal values in the context of current rules is because "there is a lesson learned in everything we do." AND because I have an enormous respect for FIRST for the positive influence the program has on our youth and mentors. I hope to be part of the solutions that bring FIRST to become a more positive influence on the FIRST community. Trust me, I know that I'd be laughed out of the room if I was to trying to convey my "don't bend the rules" philosophy to a room full of high school football coaches. That's what makes FIRST so special ... we strive to create a society that our grandmothers would be proud. Quote:
Quote:
Hope this clarifies my post, Lucien Last edited by Natchez : 02-03-2005 at 22:40. |
|
#6
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Re: "Load Bearing Surface"
Quote:
Lucien, You are bringing up an excellent discussion here and on other issues with the YMTC. With many of us being long-time, passionate FIRSTers, we all know that a new game brings new challenges, rules and changes. One of the things that makes FIRST cool is that there are many brilliant people who are putting in their time to make FIRST great. As the case with typical brilliant people, they don't all think alike. Since we have all of these changes from year to year and we have people who can think independently, we will see conflicts of opinions. You see this, and you try to raise issues early to see what these conflicts are. Some people escape from conflicts, others try to address them head on. You're a "head on" type of guy, and for that, I applaud you. You may think that you are "using everyone's white space", but you are not. You are bringing up situations now that would have reared their ugly head later, when people (GDC, FIRST, referees) are not prepared to put together a unified answer. While your attention to this matter probably ruffled some feathers, it made us all aware of some gray areas that need to be closely looked at during the early weekends of Regional competition. We now have a situation where many informed people will be looking at loading zone situations, seeing if things are being called consistently, and doing their best to touch the loading zone. Without your instigation to question the clarity of this issue, we would have many teams suprised by penalties during the early weeks of Regionals. Thanks, Lucien. Andy B. |
|
#7
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: "Load Bearing Surface"
Quote:
<G14> Field attendants will place TETRAS on the Tetra Loading Stations on the side of the field opposite the HUMAN PLAYERS (i.e. the “automated” LOADING ZONE). A ROBOT must enter the corresponding LOADING ZONE, to retrieve the TETRA from the Loading Station, and enter it into play. The HUMAN PLAYER does not have to leave the pressure pad sensor during this operation. When the TETRA is removed from the Loading Station and the ROBOT has left the LOADING ZONE, the field attendant will place a new TETRA on the Loading Station at the first safe opportunity. Robots may not intentionally interfere with field attendant’s efforts to place TETRAS on the Loading Stations. This update clarified the language in the orginal manual to make it clear that robots must enter the loading zone before retrieving a tetra. This did not change the basis of the original wording, but removed potential for mis-interpretation. The original wording ("At any time, a ROBOT may enter the corresponding loading zone to retrieve a tetra...") focused on the point that an alliance robot has an option to retrieve tetras from the automated loading stations (e.g. the use of "a ROBOT may enter the..."). But FIRST recognized that it could cause confusion when determining the temporal sequence of events, so issued the clarification. This was done very early in the process, in the first week after kick-off, so any impact to detailed robot designs should have been minimal. In Update #8 on February 4, the following sentance was added: "If a robot touches a Loading Station tetra before it is in the LOADING ZONE, the offending alliance will be assessed a 10-point penalty and the tetra will not be scored." This update did not modify the rule, but simply stated the penalty associated with a violation of the rule that had been in place since January 14 (actually, since Kick-off and just clarified on 1/14). I don't see how this drastically changed the rules of the game. Quote:
![]() Quote:
The best part is that Lucien and I have known each other for the better part of 15 years, and we both DO think alike. And if that doesn't scare you, nothing ever will! ![]() -dave Last edited by dlavery : 02-03-2005 at 19:19. |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: "Load Bearing Surface"
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#9
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: "Load Bearing Surface"
Quote:
![]() |
|
#10
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
Re: "Load Bearing Surface"
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
. So much for early retirement.Quote:
. Okay, okay, I'll bring your Krispy Kremes to the Championships ... I bought them right after the '03 Championships ... I'm sure they are still in the attic Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
All in all, I think that this was the most common "missed" call this year with contact with a robot in a loading zone coming in a close second. It has been fun reviewing this post with 100/100 hindsight ... I was only at one regional so I definitely don't have a clear view of this issue. Again, I commend everyone on keeping this thread above-the-belt. Finally & most importantly, this has not been a knock against the refs. They do a great job and we are forever grateful for their service. I hope you had a great year, Lucien |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Ratchet/slip bearing? | Ianworld | Technical Discussion | 6 | 20-01-2005 13:04 |
| Looking for 1/2" id flanged bearing .25" thick or less (with flange) | Travis Covington | Technical Discussion | 17 | 12-12-2004 21:26 |
| bearing help | jimfortytwo | Technical Discussion | 9 | 01-05-2004 06:20 |
| Need A 0.75" ID bearing .DWG | Tytus Gerrish | Inventor | 6 | 22-10-2003 11:23 |
| Bearing support - Official | Mike Martus | OCCRA | 0 | 24-09-2002 05:26 |