YMTC: Per the CURRENT RULES how will FIRST score the STJB's?

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Swampdude

Alan, I think I recall you guys stacked one like this against 269 Cooney quest at Boilermaker...
Therefore my answer is: It depends who your head ref is.

I'd argue that the call at the end of that match did not follow the CURRENT RULES as specified in this YMTC thread. I don't know what the refs' logic was, but I don't think they properly applied the definition of STACKED that is given in the manual.

[Jeff Rodriguez]

I forgot the camera tonight, but I did do some playing.

The first thing that needs to be clarified is what to measure. After a minute or two to testing it was obvious that measurements could vary. I originally thought that the 6" measurement would be from the center of one clover to the center of another. There are however, multiple points to measure from.
ALL MEASUREMENTS REFEREED TO ARE FROM CENTER TO CENTER OF THE CLOVERS.

Second, the tetras I was using are PVC with aluminum clovers and/or steel clovers. The goals are also PVC with steel clovers. The goals start to bend in wards when 2 or more tetras are placed on them.

So, stacking 2 tetras sideways (like the STJB) was virtually impossible to get within 6". The closet we could get them was 6.5" with a lot of pushing and forcing. Typically the tetras were 7-8" for the closest tetra and 8-10" for the second. A tetra placed on top of the 2 sideways tetras wasn't even close to scoring, typically 15-18" away from the apex of the goal.

I could not see how any of the apexes of the tetras in the STJB are with 6" of any other tetra apex. Again, the biggest factor seems to be where the measurement is taken from.
If you are measuring the two nearest points on each clover, than the lowest tetra in the STJB is 5-6.5" from the apex of the goal.

I hope this helps some. I encourage everyone to test it out yourself and take some measurements. Also, before doing this maneuver in competition, ask for clarification from the referee. They will be happy to stop the problem before it starts.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Ogre

ALL MEASUREMENTS REFEREED TO ARE FROM CENTER TO CENTER OF THE CLOVERS.

Since three of the four points of a tetra atop a goal are nowhere near a clover, I don't believe that's a reasonable intepretation of the rule.

Originally Posted by Rules, Section 4

To be considered STACKED, the TETRA must be properly seated on the subordinate GOAL or TETRA such that all four apex connectors are within six inches of the SUPPORTING structure.

The clover at the top of a goal is not the supporting structure. If you remove the clover (while still holding the goal's tubes in place), the tetra remains supported.

I think it's obvious that the supporting structure is the "outer" surface of the goal, where the tetra can touch and actually be supported. That's where I think the six inch measurement should be made from.

[The Lucas]

It looks like given new rules FIRST's decision is Red 0 Tetras, Blue 1 Tetra, Blue Owns the Stack. That option got a zero in the poll (at the time Update 21 was released) so I guess this is a surprise decision.

Originally Posted by Update 21

This update is to nullify strategies aimed at "blocking" a goal by hanging tetras on a goal
so that the goal is partially or totally unavailable for the placement of additional
STACKED tetras. By expanding on the definition of STACKED, we intend to obviate a
potential strategy that might cripple the excitement of the game. Such a strategy has not
yet been used at any regional competitions and we are taking this precautionary step to
ensure that the game you have played at the regional competitions is the same one that
will be played at The Championship.

Originally Posted by Joe Johnson

Let me list just a few the teams I that I have seen first hand that I think could do this WITH THE MACHINE THEY HAVE NOW using a simple double load from there player station (load, back out, re-load in this goofy manner, then go score pretty much as they score now.).

33
47
67
85
201
217
245
302
322
573
910
1213
1596

This is just a list off the top of my head of teams I have seen first hand that I think have grippers that could do it right out of the box in Atlanta.

I am sure that there are more that I have seen but can recall right now and even more still that I have not seen from other regionals and even more STILL that could do it with simple modifications to their loaders.

I am not trying to be an alarmist, but if it is legal and it works as advertized, why wouldn't a LOT of teams do it?

Joe J.

It seems like FIRST was almost directly responding to Dr. Joe's comments on the other thread.

This was a very productive discussion, since it yielded a Team Update to make the official ruling. I don't think this rule clarification would have been made if this had not been discussed on the Chief Delphi forums. This is another testament to the positive impact of these forums at a time when the mood of these forums has been rather negative (complaining, ref bashing, etc.)

[meaubry]

I am extremely disappointed in this ruling , especially at this time. Since this has not occurred during the regional events, why take such evasive action now?
In avoiding a situation that they somehow overlooked - they have nullified what was a legitimate strategic maneuver, until today.
Seems kind of late to decide what is "good" and what is "bad" for the game.
I will also apologize now to any and all that I may have offended by stating my opinion.
But - I have always spoken my mind in support, as well as opposition, to the decisions made those in position to make them at FIRST. This one I am opposed to.
Isn't solving all of the problems part of the challenge?
Why penalize those that can or have figured out a way to play the game within all of the existing rules. Granted, this maneuver would have been a game changer for sure, but why penalize thinking "out of the box"?

[Collmandoman]

I sympathize with you that it is late... and slightly irresponsible because you are PLAYING the game how they asked
BUT!
NO team has used this strategy.. so I don't really understand why you are upset.. of course it's not the most logical course of action.. but it isn't hurting anybody.. or giving anyone an advantage

[JamesCH95]

This may be a silly question, but is a stack like this stbj actually possible? Has it ever happened? It doesn't seem likely or even possible to me... good discussion otherwise though.

[Jeff Rodriguez]

Originally Posted by JamesCH95

This may be a silly question, but is a stack like this stbj actually possible? Has it ever happened? It doesn't seem likely or even possible to me... good discussion otherwise though.

Yes, it can happen. It happened at Midwest.
We practiced it a little before the update came out.

[Scott Chambliss]

hmmm, I was reading this thread and had decided to vote #3 (blue has 1, owns goal), and then I read updade 21. I am suprised that the rulemakers actually agree with me for once, but I liked the discussion about an anti-capping strategy.