YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?

[ChrisMcK2186]

Ok, just finished reading this thread, I started at 2:45 and it is now 3:40 EST. I truly hate to say this but I agree with Cody and T. Hoffman. I hate going against Mr. Lavery, being on the GDC, but the rule was not stated to put the red team behind. The rule about lifting is read from the perspective of the lifted bot, the one at X height, therefore, the fact that a part of the other bot fell onto a game piece is irrelevant, the redabots take home the score. If I was one the blue alliance, I would also refuse the trophy. My team doesn't need to resort to rule twisting to win, I believe it would be against the GP-ocity of the event.
The red alliance won. Several ringers come in to contact with bots at VCU but they were not called like this. The judges knew that the ringers had no structural support of the elevated bots, as the judges at Magnolia should, redabot is in magnolia right? If they removed the incriminating ringer, the raised bot would not move the slightest.

The cookies in red are pretty good but nothing compares to the furniture in the red lounge. Mmmmmm, lay-z-boys...

Chris

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by T. Hoffman

Whether it's binding or not (I still can't find the post where Dave said it wasn't a substitute for the official rules - maybe I'm just crazy.....), the Q/A isn't PUSHED to teams via Email Blast or other active means. That means not everyone is going to read it. That means it's poorly communicated. Poor communication makes Woodie Flowers cry.

You're quite right; I didn't mean to make that sound like its officialness was a remedy for its obscurity. Sure, the teams ought to be reading it, but if they aren't, the officials will be in a tricky position when they refer to the Q&A printouts and the team says "what's that".

Originally Posted by Brandon Holley

I wonder if the refs at the events are aware of every Q&A response?? Interpretation directly of the rulebook would sway me to give it to the red alliance. However interpretation from the Q&A would push me to the blue. So if the refs aren't updated daily on these responses...and these responses are to be taken as a rule, aren't the refs not really enforcing the correct interpretations?

The head referees and lead inspectors are given access to a document with the entire Q&A. It's up to them to disseminate it to the rest of the referees and inspectors. And then everyone has to read it.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by dlavery

Learn to do that, and make it a regular skill that is consistently applied when trying to understand why a referee has made a particular call. And when you can do that, you will suddenly find that that skill is transferable to many, many other situations. That same skill is incredibly important when you are dealing with college professors, professional compatriots, business competitors, other organizations, other companies, and other countries. There is an unfortunately small percentage of people can really do this well. But those that can see the world from the other person's point of view are capable of making huge impacts on the world.

Entirely true. I was rather upset at the LA regional when some younger members of my team were mocking the security guard at the door who wouldn't let them bring their utility knives in. This poor guy was just doing his job. I told them the same advise I try to live by, "Don't ever make fun of someone for doing their job".

This applies back to the refs as well. They have the most difficult job at the regional by far; Any decision they make is guaranteed to upset 50% of the people. I'm sure that 99.9% of the refs aren't "out to get you". Sure they can make mistakes, but I'm sure they make less mistakes in a regional that cost matches than an individual drive team makes in a match that can cost a match.

[daveed007]

I was a referee (not head) at one of this year's regionals. We were told that if you can remove a tube from underneath the robot "without resistance" that we could count that robot as unsupported. That's the "official" wording from the Head Ref. Personally, I agree with this interpretation of the rules. I also think FIRST has to do a better job of updating official rules with some type of logic and common sense.

That being said....there is a very valid argument that I haven't seen raised in this thoughtful discussion. The essence of the argument here is between strict interpretation of the rules vs. common sense or a looser interpretation. I think a vast majority of the people here would agree that the rules "should" allow the red alliance to win this match. However, there are many teams that painstakingly go through great efforts to design, build, and run their robots to abide by a strict interpretation of the rulebook. Circumventing the rules in favor of "common sense" by a referee would punish such a team for their time and work in these area. Just another facet of the argument to consider....

Dave

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

The head referees and lead inspectors are given access to a document with the entire Q&A. It's up to them to disseminate it to the rest of the referees and inspectors. And then everyone has to read it.

Oh goody, in addition to the free T-shirt, every person signing up for referee work at a FIRST regional gets a complimentary session of self-inflicted torture!

Well if the head refs are doing their job and disseminating the information to the other refs, I suppose that covers communication to one group of people, although I'd go crazier perusing through the dozens of Q&A replies trying to find the ones relevant to a particular call. It would still be a heckuva lot more straightforward if these Q/A clarifications were incorporated directly into the rules. Dave has nothing better to do with his time than sift through the mass of Q/A responses the GDC has generated and merge them with the rulebook. Well, actually, yes he does....that's why he brought Sean into the world.....

Actually, I believe I saw one instance at Midwest today where the refs called the "absurd" YMTC condition and negated bonus points for a robot lift. Hopefully it's being called consistently. Any feedback from regional-goers on whether refs were allowing bonus points even if tubes were stuck under ramps on the other side of the rampbot? And can you comment on whether the TEAMS are learning of this "gotcha" rule ahead of time? That's the 2nd part of the communication puzzle.

[GaryVoshol]

At Detroit today, one of 33's ramps went down onto a ringer. A robot went up on the other ramp, and then the 3rd robot of the alliance tried to get up on the ramp supported by the ringer. Because of the support, the front lip of the ramp was a few inches off the ground, and the robot couldn't make it up the ramp. But it did tilt the ramp just enough that it levered the ramp support leg up off the ringer. The head ref walked over and easily removed the ringer, because there was no longer any contact. One lifted robot counted for points!

[Daniel_LaFleur]

I wonder ...

If we were to follow Daves' interpretation of this rule, how many teams would take the 10 point penalty (for being in the other home zone with 15 seconds left) to shove a tube under a ramp and negate a 2 robot, 12" lift?

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by T. Hofman

By the way, notice how the gap in the poll has recently increased significantly in favor of red! Woohoo! Vote for red!!!! We have cookies!!!

Hey! No fair bribing the voters! (besides, for eveyone that votes for Blue, I have Krispy Kremes....)

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

One word: consistency A referee will never have to determine if a robot is ever supported by a tube. If there's a ringer underneath a lifters robot than for consistency between referees the bonus points do not count.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

On the other hand, maybe we should ask ourselves whether it is a bad thing for the referees to make the determination of support a judgement call. They're already relied upon to judge 4" and 12" bonuses (it's a judgement, because they often can't directly measure the robot, only the edges of the not-necessarily-flat object supporting it). The referees could examine the particular mechanism, and decide for themselves whether the toroid was supporting, or not. As long as the rules made clear that this determination was being made at the head referee's discretion, I don't think anyone would have a substantial problem with it (assuming that the referee was halfway competent). It's certainly far more practical than introducing some solid-mechanics-based criteria for determining support.

OK, you guys are on the right track here. Just take it a step or two further.

Originally Posted by T. Hoffman

... maybe I'm just crazy ...

Travis, there is absolutely NO WAY that I am going to touch that line with a ten-foot pole!

-dave

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by dlavery

Travis, there is absolutely NO WAY that I am going to touch that line with a ten-foot pole!

-dave

See? I set you up, and you drop the ball. How are we ever going to go on tour with our Abbott and Costello routine if you keep messing up like this?

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

I wonder ...

If we were to follow Daves' interpretation of this rule, how many teams would take the 10 point penalty (for being in the other home zone with 15 seconds left) to shove a tube under a ramp and negate a 2 robot, 12" lift?

Don't forget, intentionally making your opponent break the rules is a yellow card offense.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by GaryV1188

Don't forget, intentionally making your opponent break the rules is a yellow card offense.

Please quote the rule that says you cannot have a tube under your ramp.


All that a tube (in that position) does is negate a (60 point) lift.

[EricH]

I am getting two things from this discussion:

1. The specific situation is unclear. Q&A says no points, but there is no definition of the word supported in the manual. Manual as written says points, maybe. Q&A is NOT the final authority (although this is debatable--we need a specific "power structure" indicating what has the trump card, Manual, Updates, or Q&A). So, the head ref has to make a judgement call with little guidance, other than what has been called before (for consistency's sake--is there a way of getting calls between refs quickly?). I'd hate to be the first ref to get this situation in a Week 1 event.
2. We need an update on this situation and fast! Preferably, the only change is to add the definition of supported. (As in, touching vs pull the tube out and have two robots collapse and that sort of thing.) Simple fix, but it should eliminate most of the debate. Two views + official statements for both (if you look at them right) = not good.

If I were the head ref, right now, I'd call the event GDC member for advice. If there was no GDC member, I'd try the FTA, the other refs, the scorekeeper, and probably call FIRST HQ. If there was still disagreement, I'd likely declare for red on common sense.

[smurfgirl]

Originally Posted by fredliu168

Red alliance robot was touching a game object, which by transitivity was touching the other robot. Therefore by the rule that states the robot must not be touching a game object, red loses the extra points and loses the match 64 to 44.

Is that right?

If you're going transitively, then can't you just as well say that a robot on a ramp touching the carpet doesn't count because the carpet is part of the field, and transitively the robot on the ramp is touching the carpet?

[BlondeNerd]

In one of our matches at Chesapeake, we had 2 robots on a ramp, but one side of the ramp, supporting one robot, was on top of a completely deflated tube. No bonus points were awarded. Based on this seemingly consistant precedent, Blue wins.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by smurfgirl

If you're going transitively, then can't you just as well say that a robot on a ramp touching the carpet doesn't count because the carpet is part of the field, and transitively the robot on the ramp is touching the carpet?

Transitivity in this context applies to support, not simple contact. If A supports B and B supports C, then according to the Q&A response, C is supported by A. If A is a game piece and C is a robot, C will not receive points for being raised off the carpet. This interpretation is simple, easily understood...and obviously unpopular. It looks like the root of the issue is that the word "supported" is not defined in the manual.