"Load Bearing Surface"

[Paul Copioli]

Erin,

The reason for all this banter is because we read update 13. There are two major camps with regards to the loading zones (robot):

Camp #1: Touching was always in the rules, so why are they making it easier for the teams who just ignored/didn't know the rules?

Camp #2: It has been unclear from day one as to what constituted in the loading zone. The last Q&A (load bearing surface) didn't come out until Feb 16th, what gives? The latest update allows you to put a tie-wrap hanging down from your robot base to make it legal. What's the point?


Let me ask you these questions:

1. Was it that hard to see a robot base over the triangle at the scrimmage?

2. Would putting a tie wrap under the robot base make it easier for you?

3. Would a rule like, "Your robot base should cover at least some part of the loading zone triangle to be considered in the zone", make it easier or harder for a ref?

I am curious to hear your feedback.

-Paul

[Andy Baker]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

... but you can see the runners feet. On many robot designs, the feet (or wheels, treads, etc) can't be seen by anybody until the robot is on its back.

I challenge the point that covering can be seen better by the drive team. How does one come to that conclusion? I can see the robot BASE covering from 20 to 30 feet away. A ref will be right there.

During drive practice last night, we parcticed touching with our wheels. While the drive team had no problem touching, I had a heck of a time seeing if they touched. It was much, much, much, much (you get the point) easier to see if the drive base was over.

I wonder if the "wise guy" was from the West coast ...

Notice that FIRST said this in update 13:

"The referees will consider any item contacting the loading zone triangle, that is clearly visible and within the original 28” x 38” starting footprint, as part of the robot base. It is very important, however, that it be clearly visible to a referee standing 5 or 10 feet away. An encoder wheel or caster that is under the chassis may not be visible, and as a result, may not prevent the team from receiving a penalty."

CLEARLY VISIBLE is mentioned two times in there. When teams put on these curb-feelers, then the feeler needs to be on the perimeter of the drive base, not on the inside. If the ref does not "clearly" see the touch, then they should throw the flag.

I think that this rule is made to make things more cut and dry for the referees.

As for the coach's view vs. the ref's view, I was referring to the occasion when a team is barely passing over the apex of the load zone triangle. Even though the coach is farther away from the robot, he/she has a better angle to see if the robot "broke the plane" compared to the ref. The ref needs to have the better view, not the coach. What this "touching" rule is trying to eliminate is post-match arguements between drive teams and referees.

coach: "We were in! We broke the plane! I saw us break the plane!!!"
ref: "You did not look in from my view."
coach: "We have it on video!!!"
ref: "I can't look at video, you know that, this is not the NFL."
coach: "Well, come over to the driver's station and I can show you that I had a clear view of this... I tell ya - we broke the plane!!!!"
ref: "The decision stands. I am not going to change my mind on this."
coach: "Aaaaaah. You audibly inhale."

...as opposed to...

coach: "We were in! We touched the loading zone!"
ref: "No you weren't in. I saw space between your feeler (or wheel) and the triangle. I was only 3 feet away. I had a much better view of this than you did from 20 feet away."
coach: "OK, if you saw it better, we can handle that. You are a brilliant referee. Can I have an autograph?"

Referees... gotta love 'em.

Andy B.

[Paul Copioli]

No arguement that "Clearly Visible" was mentioned two times in an update that came out the day before ship.

Referees .... I can probably find something I love about 'em

[Erin Rapacki]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

Let me ask you these questions:

1. Was it that hard to see a robot base over the triangle at the scrimmage?

2. Would putting a tie wrap under the robot base make it easier for you?

3. Would a rule like, "Your robot base should cover at least some part of the loading zone triangle to be considered in the zone", make it easier or harder for a ref?

I am curious to hear your feedback.

-Paul

[Keep in mind, none of my answers are official or represent FIRST's opinion on these rulings. This is only from my personal experience at the UTC Scrimmage.]

1. It was extremely difficult to tell if a wheel was on the triangle (clear lexan or not) especially since many teams had low clearances. I was moving up and down, crouching on my knees, and doing everything I could think of to see. Basically, I was one referee required to watch both HP Loading Zones on one side (red side specifically). There was too much going on during that split second when a tetra was actually being loaded (looking for a load bearing surface, two feet in HP zone, watch for other robots hitting the robot being loaded, make sure HP loads corresponding team's robot only, make sure robot is off (lights don't blink), etc...). Multiply That By TWO! Then, if the wheel is not on the triangle, we have to be quick enough to tell the HP to forget it or throw a penalty; but, everybody still gets confused and thinks the referees screwed up. Maybe it's just me, but there's a lot to pay attention to as a referee this year. However, I believe that if these rules aren't clarified or altered many quazi-inexperienced referees could easily make bad calls.

2. I doubt we'd be able to see a tie wrap (once again, too much to look for in a brief few seconds). Depends on the robot's clearance.

3.It was not difficult to tell if the 28x38 robot base was generally over the triangle (breaking the plane); I think that would make things easier and more consistent for a referee to judge.

Another thing, many of the robots were designed to load by driving straight into the triangle. However, if they drive straight into it, there was typically no load bearing surface touching the triangle unless they pulled all the way in (which didn't happen often because the HP jumped off the pad too soon). Therefore, many robots were coming in at weird angles and could have posed a safety risk to the HP.

[Chris Hibner]

Originally Posted by Andy Baker

CLEARLY VISIBLE is mentioned two times in there. When teams put on these curb-feelers, then the feeler needs to be on the perimeter of the drive base, not on the inside. If the ref does not "clearly" see the touch, then they should throw the flag.

Getting back to our wheelie bar design...

There is NO WAY for us to make a tie-wrap clearly visible to the referees: our wheelie bars cover up the front of our robot.

Here is what makes me really upset about this whole deal: If it was so "clear" that rule <G12> meant that something within the 38x28 footprint needed to touch the loading station, then WHY WASN'T THE RULE WRITTEN THAT WAY?????? Why didn't <G12> say:

<G12> Something within the 38x28 footprint of your robot must be touching the loading zone to grab a Tetra.

Isn't that simple? If it was that simple to write the rule that way, then why wasn't it? To me, it wasn't written that way in order to allow teams to a) fall over at the start of the match, b) allow their drivetrain to expand, or c) use outriggers or wheelie bars. The rule was pretty clear to say that you shouldn't violate the spirit of the rule by dropping a tether so you can gain "loading zone protection". Why was all of this "spirit of the rule" stuff included if they could've just written the rule as I have it above?

Someone asked, "where do you draw the line on how long wheelie bars can be?" Why do you need to draw a line? These things tend to govern themselves: if your footprint is too big, you're not going to be able to drive around the field due to the congestion and you'll lose anyway.

[Kit Gerhart]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

How can you say this rule was clear? Having the robot base over the loading triangle isn't blatantly obvious? C'mon. You guys are being a bit harsh, aren't you? I don't like rule changes either, especially this one. I argue that without this rule change the referees would have interpreted "blatantly obvious" as a robot base (say, the kit bot) clearly over the loading triangle. I also think the "tie wrap hanging from the base" is a ludicrous proposal, but given the RECENT interpretation that is what my team will do.

Also, look at the picture next to rule S07. It is clear that the original intent of this rule was a drive base had to be over the zone. Notice that the wheels are not touching. Also, here is the rule as written in the FIRST manual:




-Paul

After posting this question to Q and A:

ID: 1393 Section: 4.3 Status: Answered Date Answered: 1/28/2005
Q: As I read the clarifications so far, a robot can be straddling a loading zone triangle with the triangle extending nearly two feet under the robot, but the robot is not "in" the loading zone. Am I interpreting the rule correctly?

and getting this response:

A: See #978. It is very clear.

we started planning to have whiskers, tie wraps, or something hanging from the entire width of both ends of our robot. To me, the intent of the "loading zone" as a safety design is being missed, but we'll be ready to comply with whatever interpretation FIRST ultimately uses. In this game, the only thing worse than 10 point penalties is 30 point penalties.

[Kit Gerhart]

Originally Posted by thoughtful

I know , but the question confuses the reader. It does not explicitly suggest that the triangles are allaince colours. It seems as it it suggesting there are no triangles. Or probably its just me

It's not just you. Whoever answered that question, ID978, and kept repeatedly referring to ID978, IMHO was not trying too hard to be helpful. OK, if you look at the rules thoroughly, you will find something saying that a "loading zone" equals "alliance colored plastic triangle," but until all this discussion got going, it was not all that obvious that "in the loading zone" equals "touching the alliance colored plastic triangle."

[Swan217]

Originally Posted by Erin Rapacki

2. I doubt we'd be able to see a tie wrap (once again, too much to look for in a brief few seconds). Depends on the robot's clearance.

3.It was not difficult to tell if the 28x38 robot base was generally over the triangle (breaking the plane); I think that would make things easier and more consistent for a referee to judge.

I agree with Erin. There will be teams out there with one or two tie wraps hanging off of the front of their robot, because they don't have the weight to add any more. It will be very hard to look for those tiewraps with all of the other things that we have to look our for as refs. I can picture this following argument:

Coach: "We HAD to have touched the triangle! We have an all-powerful ziptie on it!"
Ref: "There was a ziptie? I was busy diving for cover because your arm nearly killed me."
Ref #2: "Well, actually, I saw the ziptie, but it was about an inch away from the triangle. Still a penalty."
Coach (sobbing): "But we had a ziptie. We had a ziptie..."

Whereas if the rule went back to the original definition, with the following SIMPLE change:

<G12> The purpose of the LOADING ZONE is to allow ROBOTS to quickly and safely receive TETRAS without interference while HUMAN PLAYERS and/or field attendants are in close proximity, and then return to play. The Robot's drivebase must be clearly over the loading zone to avoid a penalty.
The LOADING ZONE is not intended to serve as a “perpetual safety zone” yada yada yada.

The conversation might look like this.

Coach: "We were over the loading zone by 5 millimeters."
Ref: "I didn't see it. The rule states that the drivebase must be CLEARLY over the loading zone to avoid a penalty."
Coach: "Oh, wow, you're right! Thank you so much for pointing out the error of my ways."
Female College Mentor on team: "You're so smart and fair. Here is my phone number. Call me sometime."

Essentially, there would be a "plane rule," but the plane would be a function of the degree of the referee's head to the loading zone instead of a vertical plane.

Originally Posted by Andy Baker

It is fun to see Copioil get all riled up about this. I can imagine the crazy Italian's face getting redder by the minute. (I am actually on the phone with him as this post is going out, and I can HEAR his blood pressure rise... fun stuff!)

It is a lot more fun when you see it in person, and then see him take it out on the drivers:

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

If you grab the joystick by the bottom again, I'm going to throw my safety glasses at you!

[Erin Rapacki]

Originally Posted by Dan Swando

Female College Mentor on team: "You're so smart and fair. Here is my phone number. Call me sometime."

I made business cards so I wouldn't have to write on napkins anymore.

[Jeff Rodriguez]

As pointed out, the word TOUCHING has been in the Q&A #978 since 1/11/05. If you are touching the loading zone, it is obvious that you are in it.

[Yan Wang]

Andy, Erin, etc. basically to anyone who favors clearly touching the loading zone triangle.

What about thoughtful's post (#14)?: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...8&postcount=14

From the first day that I read the rules, the image that FIRST put in my mind (and showed in their rules) was that covering the loading zone triangle with the robot base was acceptable. If you watch Dave Lavery's animation, the first time an HP is shown loading on a robot, the little flat blue robot is clearly over the zone but you can't tell whether or not it's touching it.

Maybe a new rule is necessary to make it more clear to the referees as to whether a robot is "in", but this one just isn't it.

[Andy Baker]

Originally Posted by Yan Wang

Andy, Erin, etc. basically to anyone who favors clearly touching the loading zone triangle.

What about thoughtful's post (#14)?: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...8&postcount=14

thoughtful has 2 good points.

1. That picture is a bad example, as it simply shows a robot covering the load zone triangle and it is not clear that the robot is touching the surface of the load zone triangle.

2. The triangle is the wrong shape for this zone. It should be a square or rectangle.

However, it is what it is.

We all have 20/20 hindsight and it is easy to see that the zone should be of a shape different than a triangle. It would be easier for teams to score and easier for refs to make the call. Should this change be made? That is a tough question. I can see two sides to this:

1. Changing a rule or field element at this point of the season is difficult to do. 1000 teams have much momentum with planning and designing, and they have been banking on these to be plastic triangles for the past 7 weeks. Maybe someone found some design key or some advantage that uses this triangular shape in loading tetras. While it may seem unlikely, a team might have an array of photoelectric sensors who pick up the geometry of the triangle to automatically load a tetra, and therefore they depend on this triangle to be exactly what it is. If FIRST changed this triangle to a square, this team would be greatly impacted and their diligence would be diminished.

2. Looking at FIRST's rule G12, the first sentence says that purpose of the loading zones is to "quickly and safely receive tetras". Changing this triangle load zone into a rectangule (or square) would definitely let teams get their tetras quicker and give the referee a safer determination of "in" or "out" of the loading zone.

This is still a quandry. Does FIRST dash the development of a few teams who were depending on the triangle to be exactly what it is on the field prints, or do they change the load zone shape to an easier-to-determine shape of square or rectangle?

This decision is not easy. Keep in mind that this is a BRAND NEW GAME that we are all playing, and it is not going to be perfect. Just like anything developed for the first time (an unedited essay, a FIRST robot, a non debugged program code), it simply will not be perfect until it is put through its application and operated over and over and over. This game is a good one, as we can see from all of the great looking robots with amazing arms. We are going to see some neat things within the next few weeks. At the same time, we teams need to realize that we may just have to deal with these imperfections.

If I were the person making this decision, I will side with sticking to what is on the print, make the teams touch the load zone and give the refs some hardhats.

Andy B.

[Natchez]

Originally Posted by Erin Rapacki

Have any of you read Update #13 yet?

Erin, most respectfully, yes, I have read (& reread, & reread ...) Update #13 along with all of the Q&As concerning the topic. As a Mississippi boy, I'm especially proud that I could read & comprehend all of it. As Andy has pointed out, we are on the rails to a major train wreck and the locomotive is moving pretty fast but is still in FIRST's control. 10-point penalties are very significant in a game where 50 points will be a good score. FIRST is in a very unique situation this time though: FIRST knows that there is a problem and they can correct it by the first regional if we put our heads together and give them good suggestions.

Everyone, here is my first cut at a reasonable, proven, low-tech, not-costly solution that FIRST may want to consider adopting.

Let's take a page out of football officiating handbook and tell the teams if they are in the zone before they incur a penalty. As a wide receiver, the referee holds up his hand if you are on-sides and on the line of scrimmage. So, why don't we have a ref stationed at each loading zone (8 per field) and indicate when "they believe" that a robot is in the loading zone by raising a hand or a green flag. If the flag is up, then go after the tetra. If the flag is down, then the ref does not think the robot is in the zone and you probably should not go after a tetra ... or the ref is asleep. Of course, you would always have the option of proceeding at your own risk.

There are two major drawbacks to this solution. One, as fast paced as the game will be, the refs will need to be on their toes and their arms might get awful tired. Two, with FIRST's implementation of the new volunteer screening process, there will probably not be enough volunteers at the events.

Let's try to stop this train wreck ... what are your ideas at a solution,
Lucien

[Erin Rapacki]

Originally Posted by Andy Baker

make the teams touch the load zone and give the refs some hardhats.

Hardhats? I do agree with that! However, it won't help. We referees couldn't get much closer to the Human Player loading zones without getting in the way of the Human Players themselves! (Tripping HPs is a bad idea too.) There's no choice but to be 5 or 10 feet away. Oh well, I guess that's why FIRST wrote "Clearly Visible."

Yes, more eyes and hand signals may work.
[I'm not defending any ideas, only stating my experiences as a referee at a trial event (remember, it was a dry-run for referees too)]

[Kyle]

This is probably a bad idea but what if there were pieces of straws or something attached to the edges of the loading zone standing up that were pushed over so when a bot enters the zone it will be clearly seen.

I know that could cause the wheels to get cought up in them but it would be a simple and low cost way to solve the problem with out having any effect to the design of other robots.
just an idea..
edit/ this was just an idea that poped in to my head and I thought it could possibly work, I am sure one of the many many many great mentors involved with FIRST could find a way to make this work/edit