New rule Clarification changes plans

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by Dzdconfusd

Note the word should in the below quote. If it was a must like in codes and standards the would have used the word shall or must. This allows you to have an angled deployed device AT YOUR OWN RISK of penalty.

OK. Now I think I understand your point. Are you saying that a mechanism or appendage can extend into the bumper zone with surfaces that are more than 10 degrees from vertical and not violate <R04> per se, but that same mechanism or appendage (having been passed by the inspector) might later be determined by a referee to have become a wedge, based on how it interacts with other robots?

[ChuckDickerson]

Originally Posted by Dzdconfusd

Pretty much every device in those Q&A's already violates <S03> already and that is why they are disallowed.

For the record, each of the 4 Q&A answers that I cited were specifically rulled on based on <R04> NOT <S03>. They become a wedge regardless of wheather or not they are a shooter.

Originally Posted by Dzdconfusd

The question comes into play when a ball harvester, like the picture of Team 33's 2004 robot from the Q&A this thread started with, is interacted with. At that point it comes down to the referee's interpretation of <S04>, and the various robot interaction rules.

Based on the direct answer from the GDC in the original Q&A a harvester is legal to be angled, a dump ramp is not per <R03>.

Re: <S03> - Definition of a Shooter

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The mechanism as shown would be a legal ball collector, but not a legal shooting mechanism because it is outside of the 28 x 38 inch allowable starting envelope. We understand your concern, but there are no exceptions to <S03>.


http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=508

I am probably not going to make many friends saying this but I don't understand the confusion. Rule <S03> has been in the rule books from the time we received the rules on January 7th. It HAS NOT CHANGED but merely been brought to light due to the recent Q&A quoted above. Our team read <S03> and <R04> and understood them to mean exactly how the FIRST Q&A clarifies them. It doesn't matter if you are "shooting" at the low goals at a low velocity or at the high goal at 12 m/s it is still shooting. The "shooting mechanism" of a gun includes not only the breach and chamber but the barrel. In the case of the questioned 2004 Team 33 bot the lower goal shooter mechanism is clearly outside the 28" x 38" starting footprint and would thus violate the <S03> rule this year. I agree with Madison that it seems that FIRST is starting to force the GP issue this year with these rules which is unfortunate because I think it limits some of the creativity. To answer my own question posted above: Yes, I think FIRST wants all the bots to be square boxes 28" x 38" or less from the floor to 8.5" up. They are also pushing the standard bumper design this year and I wonder if they will be mandatory next year? Wouldn't that just kill the creativity of any not squarish bots. They already killed the cool "flop over bots" this year. FIRST is starting to head in a direction of limiting more and more what teams can and can't do sort of like NASCAR. NASCAR has so many rules now that all of the cars a pretty much exactly the same. I don't know if FIRST views the need for these rules as in the mind of "safety" or "fairness" but either way it is unfortunate.

[ChuckDickerson]

Originally Posted by M. Krass

In my post above, http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...1&postcount=61, I highlighted the conditional statements in the latter half of rule R04 that indicate to me that any devices deployed outside the original footprint should be cognizant of potentially violating this rule but it is the referee's ultimate discretion as to whether such device is actually being used in violation of the rule. It reads to me as though a deployed device would need to actively engage in offensive or defensive wedging before some penalty would be assessed and that it is not illegal by its mere existence alone.

I believe this boils down to whether this is an inspector rule or a referee rule. Will a bot that passes inspection get penalized on the field by a referee or will the inspectors rule against a design and the bot never even make it to the field. I am thinking these are inspectors rules but maybe everyone else thinks they are referee rules.

[Peter Matteson]

Originally Posted by DeepWater

For the record, each of the 4 Q&A answers that I cited were specifically rulled on based on <R04> NOT <S03>. They become a wedge regardless of wheather or not they are a shooter.

Agreed I was just trying to make a point that they also violate the <S03> shooter rule even though it was not brought up.

To comment on how this thread started. The confusion many teams like my own had with the shooter rule is that in the original version of the rule the word throw was used so we believed rolling the ball would be legal. We and several other teams who manipulated small balls in 2004 used a mechanism that was similar to what we wanted to do this year. Based on previous experience we thought this would be legal and therefore when the Q&A started giving responses counter to these items we were compelled to ask a direct question citing a specific example of what we thougt would be allowed. We were wrong and forced to redesign.

[ttedrow]

Originally Posted by DeepWater

I believe this boils down to whether this is an inspector rule or a referee rule. Will a bot that passes inspection get penalized on the field by a referee or will the inspectors rule against a design and the bot never even make it to the field. I am thinking these are inspectors rules but maybe everyone else thinks they are referee rules.

This is probably the relevant statement in this thread. The inspection sheet has not been published yet.

"FIRST will post a copy of the Official Robot Inspection Sheet in approximately the first week of February."

My question is: the second week in February = approximately the first week of February?

[Madison]

Rule R04 specifically refers to the potential to penalize, disable or disqualify a machines -- things that can take place only during a match, only by a referee's discretion.

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by M. Krass

Rule R04 specifically refers to the potential to penalize, disable or disqualify a machines -- things that can take place only during a match, only by a referee's discretion.

<R04> is a robot rule. All robot rules are subject to inspection:

Originally Posted by 5.3 ROBOT RULES

These Rules establish the global robot construction and performance constraints dictated by the characteristics of the provided Kit of Parts along with the size and weight design limits specified in this section. Compliance with the Rules is Mandatory. Any Robot construction not in compliance with the Rules (determined at inspection) must be rectified before a robot will be allowed to compete.

[Schneidie]

Originally Posted by Greg Marra

They did. They very clearly said that no matter the exit velocity of the balls, it is "not a legal shooting mechanism because it is outside of the 28 x 38 inch allowable starting envelope."

Yeah, I think that that is not the intent of the rule, but we still have to follow it. This makes the reversing of any harvester illegal.

[Greg Marra]

Originally Posted by Schneidie

Yeah, I think that that is not the intent of the rule, but we still have to follow it. This makes the reversing of any harvester illegal.

No, this only makes the reversing of a harvester outside of the original envelope illegal. A harvester INSIDE the envelope is still legally reversable.