"Load Bearing Surface"

[Pat Major]

Originally Posted by Ogre

They exist to promote creativity and exciting matches. If they were not there, a robot could easily block their opponents loading zones and effectively shutting them out.
The loading zones promote offense robots and encourage teams to design arms/lifts and tetra grabbers rather than a large, expandable wall.

I was refering to 4.3.3. General Match Rules
<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 LOADING ZONE is not intended to serve as a “perpetual safety zone” to prevent interaction
with opponent ROBOTS for the entire match. Tethers, tape measures, long extension arms, and other devices
intended to contact the LOADING ZONE to maintain the “non-interference constraint” defined in <G15>
while the ROBOT drives around the remainder of the field are against the spirit of the rule and will not be
permitted. Such devices must be removed before the ROBOT will be permitted to play in the match.

I also think a "large expandable wall" is very creative and would be a challange to build (I'll bet Wildstang could do it). With the trangles on the floor you can still try to keep the opposing alliance from getting to the triangles If they were not present you would be trying to keep them from the tetra holder itself, instead of the loading zone. I too am a big fan of great arms and tetra grabbers. Can't wait until next weekend to get a first hand look at all the great things that have been built in the past 6 weeks.

[Andy Baker]

Originally Posted by Natchez

Pat, this is a GREAT IDEA

I'll buy you lunch if we see a bunch of refs hands going up at Championships,
Lucien

Lucien and Pat, great idea.

Count me in as a third person. I'll get the tip at lunch.

Andy

[AmyPrib]

Originally Posted by Pat Major

Speaking of baseball how about this curve ball, why not have the referees signal by raising an arm that a robot is in the loading station and it is safe for the team to remove a tetra. That way the team can keep trying to position themselves in the zone until the referee signals. No arguments over whether you were in or not, no red flags, you may not touch the tetra until his hand is raised. Assumes that we have a referee at each of the four referee loading stations

You would need 8 refs just to signal in or out. That's a lot of refs, and they aren't watching the overall match. The only issue I would see is that a ref's attention can be pulled away for a potentially "long" amount of time if he has to stare at your robot waiting for it to get "in" the loading zone properly. Even if that ref is assigned to watch that robot, I still think it could be an issue with watching other overall activities. And I personally wouldn't expect a ref to be my "in/out" identifier throughout an entire match. It compromises his safety if he's not watching what else is going on, and then the team gets frustrated with the ref because he's not signaling immediately if the robot is "in".

It's not the ref's responsibility to direct you "into" the loading zone, it's the team's responsibility. Though, it would take away the penalties for "retrieving a tetra while not in the zone" (not that I'm opposed to that!). But while it is the team's responsibility to follow the rules, this particular rule should be defined differently so that it will be clear to ALL people when you are in/out of the zone.

I like the suggestion for making the "in" zone to be touching with robot base or being in the 3d space 6" above the triangle. We are all logical enough to know what is 6" above the triangle to avoid argument calls - 6" allows for your drive base to be "hovering" inside the zone. But it prevents robots from reaching their long arm into the higher 3d space from 10ft away, that's not really "safe". I think touching and allowing 3d space of 6" height be to considered "in" seems to encompass the intent of the original rule.

It was a very good point about "straddling" the triangle - where you can use pneumatics to be in and out, without ever moving the robot. To me, that doesn't seem like that was the intent of the rule. But if they were tricky and thought that would be an innovative design to get around having to physically move, then...i guess ok.. But it seems like all the interpretations to the unclear rule have been such that you had to touch the triangle, or be "obviously" in the triangle. The ideas above seem like it would encompass that pretty easily, without being unfair to those who designed their robot to the original, unclear rule. Having zip ties and skirts to touch if you're straddling, just seems silly to require because it does risk safety of refs and allows for arguments over penalty calls.

[Billfred]

Originally Posted by AmyPrib

I like the suggestion for making the "in" zone to be touching with robot base or being in the 3d space 6" above the triangle. We are all logical enough to know what is 6" above the triangle to avoid argument calls - 6" allows for your drive base to be "hovering" inside the zone. But it prevents robots from reaching their long arm into the higher 3d space from 10ft away, that's not really "safe". I think touching and allowing 3d space of 6" height be to considered "in" seems to encompass the intent of the original rule.

I like this concept, except that no ref will have a six-inch measurement device handy. How about using some reference from the guardrail pipe?

[AmyPrib]

Originally Posted by Billfred

I like this concept, except that no ref will have a six-inch measurement device handy. How about using some reference from the guardrail pipe?

Well, that's kinda why I said we're all logical enough to know what 6" is.. including teams, and including refs. I would find it silly if people wanted to get so "exact" with the 6" and have a ruler for this rule. If you had a drivebase/body 12" above the wheels, then touch the triangle with a wheel.. but if you're straddling the triangle, I think it's obvious - even though it doesn't satisfy the 6" rule. But I'm betting we see most/all drivebases within 6-8"" of the ground.

I'm sure someone will come up with a caveat (right word?) for every "improved" rule that anyone comes up with. But it goes back to intent of the rule, and to quit being lawyers. Using a guardrail or something as a reference, fine. Maybe it would be easier if we had a FIRST official directly state what the intent of the rule was and go from there. To me, it sounds like safety for all, and to give a confined area in which you could retrieve a tetra. There have been suggestions that cover those.

[Pat Major]

[COLOR=DarkOrange][i]You would need 8 refs just to signal in or out. That's a lot of refs, and they aren't watching the overall match. The only issue I would see is that a ref's attention can be pulled away for a potentially "long" amount of time if he has to stare at your robot waiting for it to get "in" the loading zone properly. Even if that ref is assigned to watch that robot, I still think it could be an issue with watching other overall activities. And I personally wouldn't expect a ref to be my "in/out" identifier throughout an entire match. It compromises his safety if he's not watching what else is going on, and then the team gets frustrated with the ref because he's not signaling immediately if the robot is "in".

It's not the ref's responsibility to direct you "into" the loading zone, it's the team's responsibility. Though, it would take away the penalties for "retrieving a tetra while not in the zone" (not that I'm opposed to that!). But while it is the team's responsibility to follow the rules, this particular rule should be defined differently so that it will be clear to ALL people when you are in/out of the zone.[/color]

Four referees woud do. We do not need them at the human players side because of the human players mats.

A referee under the current system has to watch to see if the robot is in the loading station, he would be watching the same thing. The diffrence is that instead of throwing a red flag if the robot is not "in" he would throw up his hand when the robot is "in".

The referees would not be directing anyone, they would just be letting all teams know if a robot is in or out, which might also lessen the number of flags thrown for a team that gets into a pushing match with another robot thinking they were not quite in the zone...when indeed they were.

My guess is, we will all end up wearing skirts.

[AmyPrib]

Originally Posted by Pat Major

Four referees woud do. We do not need them at the human players side because of the human players mats.

A referee under the current system has to watch to see if the robot is in the loading station, he would be watching the same thing.

The HP can still place a tetra on a robot that is not "in" the LZ by jumping off his mat prematurely. He'll just get a penalty. So either way, the team has to know when they're "in" the LZ. Sure if we just wanted it for auto side, then yeah 4.

I suppose a ref would need to be relatively focused on a robot swooping through the auto side, since being "in" and then out can happen quickly. But, it could potentially make the ref focus on just that robot for longer periods of time than he normally would need to, if a team can't get their robot in the zone 1st, 2nd, try, they will expect the ref to give them an immediate signal as soon as they do get in- which means he has to be focused on them. It may even require the ref to get down on his knees to look, which is why i don't like the "purely touching" rule because it may not always be "obvious", like the other statement made.

I still think it's not the responsibility of the ref to do us a favor in letting us know that we're "in" the zone. The ref has a ton of other responsibilities as it is. But hay - if the refs wanted to do it and FIRST allowed it, cool. But I wouldn't want to have to rely on them to do so, simply because I don't think it's fair to the refs. There could also be inconsistency between refs in doing this - even though there shouldn't be, but on the same token, there could also be inconsistency in the way they make any call. I would think it could be lessened by a clearer defined rule.

What woulda been cool is if there were sensor pads (like mentioned by someone else) associated with a red light that everyone could see, so they knew if the robot was in or out. That may be similar to a ref raising his hand, but instead takes burden off the ref. That would help eliminate arguments over the "interference rule" if other teams couldn't see they were in, as well as any other arguments of being in or out. Oh well.

Maybe FIRST will take into consideration some of the reasonable/feasible suggestions put forth, which don't seem to change the intent of the rule, or make things unfair for certain teams.

[Kit Gerhart]

Originally Posted by Pat Major

Speaking of baseball how about this curve ball, why not have the referees signal by raising an arm that a robot is in the loading station and it is safe for the team to remove a tetra. That way the team can keep trying to position themselves in the zone until the referee signals. No arguments over whether you were in or not, no red flags, you may not touch the tetra until his hand is raised. Assumes that we have a referee at each of the four referee loading stations

As a referee in the "easy to referee" stack attack game, I'm not sure teams could count on timely raising of arms from referees that are pretty worn out after 6 or 8 hours on the field with, if they're lucky, one 20 minute break. Reffing this game is going to challenging in any case, and I don't think tired arms should be added to the referee's job.

[Jason Morrella]

As I haven't posted much this year, I'll make this my long post for the season.

Some thoughts and opinions on this thread:


While a few people are clearly very worked up over this loading zone rules, I think they will be pleasantly surprised that it does not become the big train wreck/debate they fear. Those who have a problem with the rules have some very good and valid points - every year there are some rules which teams interpret differently and which FIRST clarifies. Every year teams ask (beg) FIRST to
#1 try to have everything perfect when unveiled at the kickoff
#2 even though they try hard, if something isn't perfect and is found to be unclear - PLEASE clarify it early and only make any rule changes if it's absolutely necessary

So while people can discuss and debate how the rule "could" be different or better, here are a couple aspects of the rules all teams should be preparing for:

For a robot to interact with and retrieve a tetra from a loading zone without incurring a penalty, it must:

A) Be TOUCHING (not new, this has been the case for 46 days now and before anyone started building a robot) the loading zone triangle
B) Be clearly and visibly touching the loading zone triangle

For those who are taking notes of Law & Order reruns while preparing to argue that their robot is "over" the loading zone with refs at events - save yourself and your team a lot of time. The robot needs to "touch" the zone.

I do hold a different opinion than those who feel they would argue less with referees if they just had to be in the three dimensional place of the triangle instead of actually touching it. Take the baseball analogy - if a runner going from second to home only had to pass OVER third base and not touch it, both coaches would be sprinting out of the dugout on almost every play to argue with the umpire that the player was or wasn't over the corner tip of the base. However, in baseball it is the player’s responsibility to clearly touch the base to be safe. They can touch the center of the base, the side of the base, or just the little bity tip of the base - but they do have to touch it. If the umpire sees the base touched, safe - if he doesn't, out. It’s that simple and leads to very few arguments. FIRST refs will be much more comfortable with their judgment that they visibly saw part of the robot touching than the would be with their judgment that a part of a robot may or may not have been over an inch or two of the tip of the loading zone triangle - especially since they aren't hovering over the interaction looking down from above.

For those who feel teams are going to argue with refs that part of their robot is actually touching the triangle after the ref says it isn't. I offer this suggestion to solve any potential problem:

1. Find an unbiased stranger with no affiliation to your team (we all know almost all in FIRST are unable to consider an issue 100% objectively and with an open mind once you've taken a stance and your robot can be impacted by it in any way).

2. Ask that stranger to stand about 4-8 feet away from the loading zone triangle, about where a ref would be standing. (Forgot about the lawyers: make sure the stranger is standing up, don't ask them to lay on the carpet on their stomach)

3. Have your students drive your robot onto the loading zone triangle to the typical position/distance from the field border that your robot will be to get a tetra (2 inches over the tip of the triangle, or 2 feet into the triangle, whatever your team plans to do).

4. Ask the stranger this question: "Is that robot physically touching the triangle, not just over it?”

5. If they say, without having to squint or contort their body in any way "yeah, right there - that part of the robot is touching the triangle, it's pretty easy to see". Then hooray, you're probably good to go. Go have fun and don't worry about # 6.

6. If the stranger says "no", "I don't think so", or "at least not in a place I can see" - then you're not good to go and need to address the problem, then go have fun.

It's that simple - no need to argue with the refs at all, it's not their problem. If your first instinct is to tell the stranger (or ref) that "you're wrong, it is actually touching, it's just that the part that touches is inside the robot frame and your view is partially covered by X (insert whatever part name you want here - battery, motor, electronics, etc.)" then you are not clearly and visibly touching the triangle and should revisit # 6.

FIRST obviously took this into account when they clarified the touching rule by allowing virtually anything to be touching. Those who feel this is too easy, too simplistic, doesn't require complex engineering - you're probably right, and I'm sure most agree with you - but that's not the issue. FIRST chose not to require teams to use solutions which might require them to use lots of weight or drastically change their designs to meet the touching requirement and provided teams the option of finding a hopefully easy and low resource/cost solution if they so wish. If it's that easy and simplistic to just add some feelers, wire ties, whatever it may be as some have mentioned - then it shouldn't be a heavy burden on teams to do so. All they have to do is make sure they clearly touch the triangle so the ref can visibly see it.

Again, I'm not disagreeing with anyone that with hindsight the loading zone aspect of the game could be done a little better (maybe a different/bigger shape, rules worded a little more clear, etc.). There will be a few instances like this in every game every year. Luckily, these instances have become much fewer and less controversial the past two years.

What I do disagree with is the thought that this is a train wreck about to happen, that the sky is falling, and so on. I think back to the ball corral and goaltending rules last year. People should remember that many posted on here that those rules could ruin the game, that most matches would be decided by penalties and have zero scores, and so on. What happened is that there were a lot of penalties for the ball corral issue in week 1 and on Friday morning of some events. Then the teams adjusted, realized what the drivers and human players needed to do to avoid the penalties, and there were very few and many times no penalties on Saturdays and during the playoffs. I predict this is what will happen this year, teams will realize "wow - we (or they) got a 30 point penalty (ouch) for hitting the a robot while it was in the loading zone. We don't want that to happen again, let's not drive anywhere close to the loading zones of the other alliances whenever they have a robot in that area". I predict most teams will never get penalized for that more than once - if they do, then they really can't blame anyone else, it's there choice to be taking that risk. If some teams get 10 pt penalties for not clearly touching the loading zone, I predict they will address it, fix it, and will not get further penalties.

I think some underestimate our teams, students, and mentors. Is the loading zone issue a nuisance for a number of teams, and does it really seem to bother a few people in particular? Yes, that's clear. But a window bothers a bird in a house also - the difference is that the bird flies into the same window repeatedly and really gets a headache, while the FIRST team member recognizes the window is there, wishes it wasn't, probably curses the people who placed the window there in the first place, and then designs something to prevent them from making the same mistake again so that the window is no longer something they need to waste their time or energy complaining about.

If this is the biggest potential train wreck we experience in the 2005 game, then I think things are looking pretty good. Doesn't mean other issues or controversies won't come up, but so far this seems to be it.

Finally - based on what I sawand heard from many teams last weekend at various events, in my years in FIRST I've never seen such a high percentage of robots functioning so well at this point. I think this speaks volumes for the improved kit of parts and for all the hard work put in by the students and mentors. Congrats to everyone for 6 weeks of hard work, now go out and enjoy the fruits of your labor - good luck and have a blast at your upcoming events!

JM

[AmyPrib]

Originally Posted by Jason Morrella

For a robot to interact with and retrieve a tetra from a loading zone without incurring a penalty, it must:

A) Be TOUCHING (not new, this has been the case for 46 days now and before anyone started building a robot) the loading zone triangle
B) Be clearly and visibly touching the loading zone triangle

Take the baseball analogy - if a runner going from second to home only had to pass OVER third base and not touch it, both coaches would be sprinting out of the dugout on almost every play to argue with the umpire that the player was or wasn't over the corner tip of the base. FIRST refs will be much more comfortable with their judgment that they visibly saw part of the robot touching than the would be with their judgment that a part of a robot may or may not have been over an inch or two of the tip of the loading zone triangle - especially since they aren't hovering over the interaction looking down from above.

What I do disagree with is the thought that this is a train wreck about to happen, that the sky is falling, and so on. I predict this is what will happen this year, teams will realize "wow - we (or they) got a 30 point penalty (ouch) for hitting the a robot while it was in the loading zone. We don't want that to happen again, let's not drive anywhere close to the loading zones of the other alliances whenever they have a robot in that area".

I'm not taking either side on this issue, because we can work with it either way. I'm cool with the touching requirement. However, I feel like the baseball analogy is slightly different than our case here.

A baseball players legs are fully visible to everyone that has their eyeballs open, and you can see them from all angles. But a FIRST ref standing on the right side of a robot isn't easily going to see what's happen on the left side of the robot when there's a full robot body, side panels, etc on it. Few robots have ever been completely clear and have huge wheels easily viewable.

I think the biggest issue is that having an entire robot straddling and obviously sitting on top of the triangle is not considered in, because the distance between their wheels happens to be bigger than the triangle. I don't know that anyone has wanted to dangle a robot part over the triangle and call it in, as in the baseball analogy. Yes - that would be difficult to call (did he pass over the corner of the base, etc). It's when a robot is on top of a triangle such that the triangle itself is not visible, seems odd that that is not considered in. A stranger could stand 4-8ft away and tell you that it's obviously in, even if something underneath isn't touching. But if he's on the right side of the robot, and my robot is touching such that he could have obviously seen if he was on the left side of the robot, then standing on the right, he may not see that. I would hate to see a ref tripping over himself to rush to the left side to verify.... safety first..

I think it was also frustrating that it was 2/16/05 when the drivebase/drivetrain was defined as being inside the 28x38 dimensions. While I don't know there will be a lot of teams with this issue, it could significantly affect those that do. It went from "touching", to "being obvious", to "a part of the 28x38 base touching". I'd like to think common sense in conjunction with rules will be used when making the "in" calls. But there is inconsistency in common sense also.

I don't think that this will be a train wreck either. I have also said before that I think when you see a robot near it's loading zone, don't even think about going near it, to avoid a huge penalty. I think teams will be able to correct along the way. If you have issues with the autoload side, work the HP side to death... at least you won't get a penalty for accidentally touching the tetra before touching the triangle.

In hindsight, "in" could be defined as "touching the triangle, or obviously straddling/covering/sitting over the triangle (if the intent was to obviously be in a designated load area). But I guess the intent of the rule was to be touching the triangle in a manner that a ref can see from no matter where he's standing, even though that could almost be physically impossible, unless your whole robot is clear. I hope regionals are able to recruit minimum 10 refs/match - that's not even an exxagerated number.

And I thought the bird story was humorous....yet true.
Eh - We'll see how it goes, live and learn.

[meaubry]

I would have to agree that this is "the" topic this year. I am certain that every team will abide by whatever rule the refs decide to call. Yes, some will re-think, re-design, and re-build part of their robot to better avoid getting unwanted penalties.
And many will argue and take the same attitudes that have been observed as part of this thread. Whenever a human being is asked to determine if a rule is being broken (no matter how obvious it is) someone will have a different perspective as to whether or not the rule was broken.
In this case, Jason makes some good points. The baseball analogy is somewhat questionable as the opposing team must challenge in a speciifc way that a player missed touching a base. A different baseball example that might occur this year is the "phantom tag" at second while executing a double play. Umpires use judgement to determine touching / tagging out a runner all of the time, even the best make mistakes and sometimes arguements occur.
Why put someone in that position when it could be avoided? It's hard enough to get people to volunteer to be a ref, it won't be any easier when they are told that matches may be determined by a spilt second decision.
What is "blatently obvious to one person is not to another" - I challenge anyone to determine if a robot moving towards the loading station touches a tetra a split second before or a split second after it touches the hdpe triangle loading zone. It's pretty darn hard to watch 2 things that are not right next to each other at the same time, no matter how far away you are.
Oh yeah, one otherthing - Do ties go to the runner?

[Swan217]

Originally Posted by meaubry

Umpires use judgement to determine touching / tagging out a runner all of the time, even the best make mistakes and sometimes arguements occur.
Why put someone in that position when it could be avoided? It's hard enough to get people to volunteer to be a ref, it won't be any easier when they are told that matches may be determined by a spilt second decision.

Umpires also get paid for making these split second game altering decisions. .

Originally Posted by meaubry

Oh yeah, one other thing - Do ties go to the runner?

This is FIRST - ties always go to the runner

Also repeating the fatal flaw to the baseball analogy: Baseball players aren't wearing full length skirts when they run the bases.

[AmyPrib]

Originally Posted by meaubry

I challenge anyone to determine if a robot moving towards the loading station touches a tetra a split second before or a split second after it touches the hdpe triangle loading zone. It's pretty darn hard to watch 2 things that are not right next to each other at the same time, no matter how far away you are.

Precisely why I think there have been many concerns over this issue. While everyone will try to figure out a way to abide by the rule as written, I think it's going to be extremely difficult for anyone to judge this in action, no matter how obvious one might think it is that they're touching, esp if you're not in the right position to see the obviousness. Because the triangles are on the ground, there's likely 3 of 4 directions in which the touching action may be visibly blocked. For the auto zone, if you plan on swooping in and picking up the tetra quickly, you might end up having to slow the process down a bit so the ref can have a chance to see, I don't know. That's kinda unfortunate when time is so precious. Can't wait to check out the first week's regionals. I dont' envy a ref's position as it is sometimes a difficult spot to be in, but overall I think it'll all go well.

[rees2001]

I have no problem with the idea that it needs to be obvious that your robot is in or even touching the LZ. That can be done in many ways. The problem I see is when did the 28x38 base come into play. 4 weeks in is waaaaaay tooooooo far to make that kind of change. Many teams are done with their robots by then and others are way too far in to make that kind of change. All along we went with the premise that if we made it obvious that we are in the loading zone & we have some part of our robot make contact with the HDPE we would be considered in the LZ. We have been patient about the rules changes. All of them seem to be for the better of the game. But you cannot expect a team to redesign their robot because the robot base needs STAY 28x38. If your teams robot is designed to tip to create a 38x60 base and you completely and entirely cover the LZ when acquiring scoring objects, should you not be considered in?

Andy,
I know you have been a head referee at many FIRST events. Is this a letter of the law or an interpretation of the law? If it is obvious we are in the loading zone/completely covering the loading zone will you throw a flag? I shouldn't put you on the spot like this so, who among us would throw the flag and who wouldn't?

I just asked because I heard YOU will be the Ref at the Finger Lakes Regional next week here in Rochester. And how you deal with it in the first week sets a precedence for the entire season.

[rees2001]

After reading & re-reading the Q&A system about this subject I will use one of FIRST's analogies.

They like to use the baseball analogy of touching a base. I agree that a baseball player is not safe just by hovering over a base but what about the baseball player that slides into a base? they are still their original size, just oriented differently. I know no umpire that would rule a player out because he slid.