"Load Bearing Surface"

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by Natchez

If you leave the word "triangle" out then you are exactly correct that this rule has been around for 46 days but "TOUCHING the loading zone" is different than "TOUCHING the loading zone triangle"

...

See, it is very easy to leave off the word "triangle". Don't forget that traditionally in sports, "zone" refers to a surface that is projected across a distance. For example, the end zone in football is a 10x55 yd rectangle projected to infinity or the strike zone in baseball is the plate projected from the knees to the letters.

...

EXACTLY!!! But what about the unwritten rule that the short-stop or second-baseman only needs to be "in the neighborhood" of second base when turning a double play? Even though there are many violations, there doesn't seem to be a lot of "coaches would be sprinting out of the dugout on almost every play to argue with the umpire." The rule says that the short-stop/second-baseman must tag the base while having control of the ball for the runner from first to be out. Rarely is this violation "called" unless it is blatant. This scenario of being "in the neighborhood" is exactly what I think will happen this year ... lots of violations with very few of them called.

Jason's remarks and quotes were right on target. There is no difference between the "loading zone" and "loading zone triangle." Specifically, refer to Section 4.2.1 of the Manual, Definitions: "LOADING ZONE – The triangular colored area on the floor at the sides of the field where robots may receive and/or retrieve TETRAS that are introduced into the game." You are trying to make a distinction between "loading zone" and "loading zone triangle" where there is no difference.

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