YMTC: Redabot Loads Ten Tetras Without Moving

[ScottWolchok]

Originally Posted by Petey

It is to be assumed that the loading zone extends upwards towards infinity over the surface area of the red triangle.

Assuming that this is true, any arm on the robot is still part of the robot. Therefore, for your interpretation to have the desired effect, the rule would have to refer to the "drive base" of the robot, thereby construing the part of Redabot "straddling" the triangle as "in the loading zone".

On a side note, the rules about the loading zone seem to, on the whole, point to an intent to cause the game to be all about scoring tetras and "clever" snatching away of goals as soon as opposing robots move, as opposed to trying to maximize alliance and team mobility while minimizing opponent mobility, i.e. cutting off the supply of tetras.

[ChrisH]

Originally Posted by TLonghorns0593

Sorry i guess i was thinking of the pinning rule while posting but
<G17> A ROBOT that has received a TETRA may not collect another TETRA until it leaves and then re-enters
the LOADING ZONE. A violation will result in a 10-point penalty, and the TETRA will not be SCORED.
The way I interpret that is you have to back up off of the loading zone and then re-enter. I don't think that just removing the object that touches the zone would count. I guess it will be up to the interpretaion of the judges to decide what is leaving the zone.

The problem, as has been discussed exhaustively elsewhere, is that as things stand just removing your "foot" does count as leaving the zone. This leaves the robot in reach of the loading station and the attendant if they decide to place a tetra. This is not safe and subverts the apparent intent of an otherwise reasonable rule <G17>.

So what we have is one rule that kind of makes sense, undermining in a very real way a second rule that makes all kinds of sense. In addition, the undermining rule has been shown to be difficult to enforce fairly, because the refs can not always see whether a team is in compliance or not. Often the team themselves might not be able to tell whether they are "in the zone" or not. [Note to self] new strategy, block opponents view of triangle and hope they rack up lots of penalties, maybe use that "Kingman cloth" from 2003? [/End Note]

[Kims Robot]

I think by the rules, this is a legal "move from the zone", however, as pointed out, if it is not easy to tell that the foot has been lifted, the attendant may never know. I think it is safest for a team to retract the arm and back up at least a foot so that the attendant knows something has changed.

I think the most important thing with these fuzzy rules(ie a lot of these YMTC rules), is that whatever the judges rule, or however the game starts, it remains consistant. Looking at this redabot example, if redabot were allowed to load in this manner on the red alliance, and then switched to the blue alliance in the next QM, and the blue autoloader attendant did not know about this team's "foot" idea, it may cause some issues when the bot goes to load as part of the blue alliance...

Has anyone submitted this exact question to FIRST to get their take on it?

[Tuba4]

This YMTC is a two edged sword. According to the following answers from the Q & A, Redabot is legally "leaving" the loading zone by raising it's foot:

ID: 978 Section 4.3.3 Status:Answered Date Answered:1/11/2005

Q: Regarding <G17>: What are the parameters for being "in" a loading zone? (i.e., must some part of the robot be touching the yellow triangle, et cetera)

A: There are no yellow triangles in the loading zones. The robot base and / or drive train must be touching the loading zone. The intent of this rule is that you must be in the loading zone. By making it blatantly obvious that you are in the loading zone, you will draw far less attention from the referees.


ID: 1393 Section: 4.3 Status: Answered Date Answered: 2/8/2005

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?

A: See #978. It is very clear.

The Q & A answers clearly make this a two dimensional situation. Touching the zone is all important.

Now the question becomes does the field attendant understand that Redabot has "left" the loading zone? And is it "safe" to reload?

I realize safety is extremely important. While it may in fact be stated somewhere, I do not remember reading any safety statement in any of the loading zone rules like the following statement regarding the placement of bonus tetras:

<G10> "All bonus tetras will be stacked on the goals by field attendants at the earliest safe opportunity after the end of the autonomous period."

Bottom line for me is while Redabot is in fact making a legal play, if it is left to the discretion of the field attendant as to when to reload, it may not have a big impact.

And don't forget: 10 tetras at 9 pounds each on the end of a 12 foot arm! That would be a great feat indeed!!!

[Petey]

Hmmm...

I asked 978, and, on review, I see the confusion.

I think it is a set equation type deal.

For instance.

All robots that touch the loading zone are inside the loading zone. However, not all robots that do not touch the loading zone are outside of the loading zone. A robot may not touch the loading zone and yet it will still be inside it.

I asked FIRST to review this thread.

--Petey

[Petey]

A HA.

Update 14 does not contain the complete question. To have that, you must look at 1764.

Q: Regarding answer to 1757: Could you please respond to http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=35461, as the 1757 answer seems to be at odds with the logical conclusion of the CD thread.
A: Reference G17. A robot can be in 1 of 3 states: 1. outside of the loading zone 2. obviously in and in contact with the loading zone 3. indeterminate = depends on the observers position Therefore, it is the team's responsibility to never rely on state 2 but clearly move from state 1 to state 2 and back to state 1.

I assume they meant to say "never rely on state 3", and that would sort of answer this YMTC.


--Petey

[AJunx]

First off, thanks to Petey for posting answer 1764 in its entirety.

I believe answer 1746 further expounds the problem brought up by this YMTC.

A: Reference G17. A robot can be in 1 of 3 states: 1. outside of the loading zone 2. obviously in and in contact with the loading zone 3. indeterminate = depends on the observers position.

Suppose you made the foot on your pneumatic highly visible in both its up and down positions:

-You could easily satisfy state 2 when the foot is in the down position (you are straddling, so you are obviously IN, and your foot is clearly touching)

-However, when you raise your foot, you would no longer satisfy state 2 (you would not be in contact with the loading zone),

-But, you would also not satisfy state 1, because you would still clearly be IN the loading zone but not touching it (straddling but clearly not touching)

This is the problem. The rules, as currently interpreted, do not follow our common sense understanding of "in" and "out."

Take a look at the picture posted of Team 340's robot situated in the loading zone:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=35551

I believe that common sense tells us that Team 340's robot is absolutely IN the loading zone. Common sense also dictates that in this same position, they cannot possibly be outside of the loading zone. The rules, as have been brought to light by this YMTC, suggest otherwise.

The solution?
Perhaps it is to take the phrase "and in contact with the loading zone" out of state 2 and replace it with "or in clear contact with the loading zone ."

We all know what "obviously IN" means. We also know what "obviously OUT" means. The referees will have no trouble understanding either of these descriptions. I see no reason that both the wording and the interpretation of the rules cannot be subject to our common sense.

-Andrew