YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by sanddrag

I don't get what the issue is here. That redateam had a ramp on a ringer? Not even an issue. They win.

Sanddrag,

At GLR, many times endgame points were nullified because ramps were on ringers. Teams actually began using the strategy of scattering tubes throughout the endzone to prevent rampbots from earning points.

[Cody Carey]

If I've ever seen "lawyering the rules", this is it. The purpose of this rule is so robots weren't designed to use tubes to elevate robots. There really is no sane way to interperet this as the redateam not getting the bonus points. The rule says that if the robot is "supported" by a gamepeice, then the points are null. Since the robot isn't in any way supported by a gamepiece, the points are definately earned.

[Graham Donaldson]

As many people have said, this is where strict interpretation of the rules is just bad. I hate to sound like I'm repeating what Travis said, but COME ON guys, both teams and refs. Let's be serious here. I have a feeling (and I'm sure others and the GDC will agree with me) that the rule was written so that teams wouldn't use the ringers to their advantage- they're put under enough stress anyways. If one of your ramps gets stuck on a ringer, and doesn't fold down all the way, but you still life 1 bot with the other, it's essentially the same as lifting only one bot and just leaving your other ramp down.

Have some common sense!!!

[rees2001]

end result: tie - 64 -64
redabot gets the 30 points bonus but gets a 10 point celebrating penalty & the teams have to play a 4th match....

almost happened.

[Carol]

I suggest you check out this response in the Q&A:

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=5292

[Brandon Holley]

GDC Says:
Under Rule <G56> (as amended in Team Update #3), Robots that are supported by a Game Piece can not earn Bonus Points. Under Rule <G55>, inflated and deflated Game Pieces are evaluated in the same way when determining the match score. Therefore, a Robot supported by a deflated Game Piece would not be able to earn any bonus points. This is a transitive property, and would also be true for any Robot supported by a robot supported by a Game Piece.



Is the robot lifting these robots supported by a game piece??? I say no...their ramp is...but their robot is not. Like people have said above me....COMMON SENSE PEOPLE...red lifted...red wins

I would also not accept the trophy if i were the blue alliance.

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by Brandon Holley

Is the robot lifting these robots supported by a game piece??? I say no...their ramp is...but their robot is not.

For this logic to be true, then the ramp must not be considered part of the Robot. Can you show ANY rule, or Q&A answer, or Team Update, that would indicate that the ramp is not part of the Robot?

-dave

[Kris Verdeyen]

Originally Posted by T. Hoffman

GAH. If I were blueateam's alliance captain, I'd be ashamed at winning should a call against redateam be made in this manner, and I'd immediately forfeit my hollow "victory" for the sake of promoting common sense, logic, and reason throughout FIRST. I would seriously refuse to accept the trophy, for I'd be ashamed to benefit from such a lame ruling that would presume a ringer holding up part of a ramp on one side of the rampbot's drivebase is somehow magically supporting the robot lifted 12"+ on the other side of the drivebase.

I would also not accept the trophy if i were the blue alliance.

It's either part of the game or it isn't. Would it be "lame" or "hollow" if blueateam had put the ringers there, under the ramp? No, it would have been a brilliant play. Otherwise, it's just luck. In any game or sport, and especially in this one, there is luck involved. If you refuse to allow that your opponent's bad luck can help you win a match at least as much as your good luck, then there aren't many trophies you can accept.

Of course, we're not talking about luck. The rule oughta be that the ramp unsupported by a tube should count, but if that's not the rule, than it isn't. We do need some consistency, but not everything is a travesty. If I'm on blueateam, I accept the trophy with a smile on my face and a song in my heart.

[John Gutmann]

Originally Posted by Jack Jones

Quoting <G103> The "robot loses height rule?

ADD: Too bad there isn't some kind of wireless communication we could use. So that during the regionals they could contact a central commitee, or supreme official, that could resolve all the hidden gray areas and define some of the wording. That way things wouldn't get called one way here, and another there. Oh well, guess we'll just have to wait till someone invents such a device.

I believe they have one, its called a cell phone.

[seanwitte]

Originally Posted by Cody Carey

If I've ever seen "lawyering the rules", this is it. The purpose of this rule is so robots weren't designed to use tubes to elevate robots. There really is no sane way to interperet this as the redateam not getting the bonus points. The rule says that if the robot is "supported" by a gamepeice, then the points are null. Since the robot isn't in any way supported by a gamepiece, the points are definately earned.

The rule was clarified on February 26th in the Q&A. It's very clear. If you're on top of a game piece you cannot earn bonus points, and neither can any robot you're touching. I think it's a great rule since it makes it that much harder to get the extra points.

[Cody Carey]

Originally Posted by seanwitte

The rule was clarified on February 26th in the Q&A. It's very clear. If you're on top of a game piece you cannot earn bonus points, and neither can any robot you're touching. I think it's a great rule since it makes it that much harder to get the extra points.

The question adressed by the GDC was definately not the question asked in this thread. This thread says that there are two seperate ramps, a robot is picked up by one ramp, with no gamepeice supporting it at all. The other ramp has no robot on it, but is being touched by a gamepeice.


The GDC responded that any robot that is being supported by a gamepeice does not count for points. I would argue that none of the red robots are supported by a gamepeice. One part of the red bot is supported by the tube, that part is in no way connected with lifting the other robot.

It is times like this when we may have to look at the spirit of the rule. The spirit, I believe, is that you cannot gain extra height from a lift by being on top of a tube... not that a tube touching the robot, which has absolutely no effect on another robot being lifted will null the score.

If I were on the Blue alliance, I would most definately not accept any trophies that would be associated with winning this match on a small, stupid technicality. I would accept the fact that the red robot performed better at the given task, and not try to weasel my way into a win.

Originally Posted by Origional Q&A Question

If a deflated game piece is under a support lef of a ramp or platform will any robot on the top of the ramp be considered lifted?

Originally Posted by GDC Response

Under Rule <G56> (as amended in Team Update #3), Robots that are supported by a Game Piece can not earn Bonus Points. Under Rule <G55>, inflated and deflated Game Pieces are evaluated in the same way when determining the match score. Therefore, a Robot supported by a deflated Game Piece would not be able to earn any bonus points. This is a transitive property, and would also be true for any Robot supported by a robot supported by a Game Piece.

[dlavery]

From Chapter 7 of the manual:

ROBOT: anything that has passed ROBOT inspection that a TEAM places on the field prior to the start of a match.

I don't see anything in the manual the provides for a separate definition of a Ramp or Robot that would indicate that a Ramp is NOT part of a Robot. Therefore, if Rule <G56> discusses Robots that are supported by Game Pieces, and per the definition a Ramp is equivalent to a Robot, and the Q&A makes it clear that a Robot supported by a Robot supported by a Game Piece cannot receive bonus points, then....

There really is only one way that the rules can be applied in this case. And if you think it through, you will see why it has to be that way. Some people will not like the correct interpretation (actually, since the current voting is virtually 50-50, about half of them won't like it ). Lucien has done a great job of using an extreme case to motivate the discussion. But careful consideration of the moderate cases will reveal why the rule, the application of the rule, and the outcome of the example match, have to be the way they are.

Lucien, this was an absolutely brilliant YMTC to post. I must admit, I am finding this whole discussion quite interesting. For the past two and a half months (actually, for the past several competition seasons) we have seen a significant percentage of the community all up in arms about referees that don't enforce the rules exactly as written, about how strict interpretations must be the only interpretations of the rules, hair-splitting over definitions of individual words used in the rules and their meanings, and overt "lawyering." Entire teams are saying they are going to go do VEX. Senior mentors are threatening to quit. Chicken Little is screaming about this being the beginning of the end for FIRST.

And yet, when a very plausible situation is discussed, many of those very same people are the very first ones to start saying "well, the rules really don't mean that. And even if they do, let's redefine them on the fly so that they mean something different. After all, they shouldn't be enforced that way..." The honor of a team that might benefit from strict adherence to the rules is now being questioned. Phrased like "I would be embarrassed," "shameful," and " forfeit a hollow victory" are being thrown around. A reprise of Marlon Brando's 1973 refusal to accept an Oscar is being touted as the only appropriate action.

The inconsistency in the positions being taken is fascinating to observe.

-dave

[seanwitte]

Originally Posted by Cody Carey

The question adressed by the GDC was definately not the question asked in this thread. This thread says that there are two seperate ramps, a robot is picked up by one ramp, with no gamepeice supporting it at all. The other ramp has no robot on it, but is being touched by a gamepeice.

OK, so the ramps are not part of the robot?

It is times like this when we may have to look at the spirit of the rule. The spirit, I believe, is that you cannot gain extra height from a lift by being on top of a tube... not that a tube touching the robot, which has absolutely no effect on another robot being lifted will null the score.

There really isn't any gray area here. A part of the robot is on top of a tube, therefore that robot and any robots on top of it are not eligible for bonus points. Whether it's being supported or not, the rule is very clear. Unless you're on the GDC you have no idea what the motivation behind the rule is. How do you know this wasn't intentional to make it more difficult to get those 60 bonus points? You can't just flop your ramps down willy-nilly and expect to score the bonus.

[Cody Carey]

What is the definition of supported?

[Cody Carey]

Originally Posted by Merriam-Webster online dictionary

Main Entry:1sup·port Pronunciation: \sə-ˈpȯrt\ Function:transitive verb Etymology:Middle English, from Anglo-French supporter, from Late Latin supportare, from Latin, to transport, from sub- + portare to carry — more at fareDate:14th century 1: to endure bravely or quietly : bear2 a (1): to promote the interests or cause of (2): to uphold or defend as valid or right : advocate <supports fair play> (3): to argue or vote for <supported the motion to lower taxes> b (1): assist, help <bombers supported the ground troops> (2): to act with (a star actor) (3): to bid in bridge so as to show support for c: to provide with substantiation : corroborate <support an alibi>3 a: to pay the costs of : maintain <support a family> b: to provide a basis for the existence or subsistence of <the island could probably support three — A. B. C. Whipple> <support a habit>4 a: to hold up or serve as a foundation or prop for b: to maintain (a price) at a desired level by purchases or loans; also : to maintain the price of by purchases or loans5: to keep from fainting, yielding, or losing courage : comfort6: to keep (something) going

Since there was no definition supplied in the manual, I can only go with the next best thing: Merriam-Webster. The only definition that applies to our focus is number four a, "to hold up or serve as a foundation or prop for".
In this case, is the tube Holding up or serving as a foundation for anything? I don't believe so. If you remove the tube, The elevated robot stays where it is at... and the Elevating robot certainly won't tip over, or fall into the ground due to lack of ringer.