Team Update #18

[Cody Carey]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

If we have the change, I WILL try this. Hopefully to win, but if not atleast in protest of the constant rule changes.

After the made up rules that could've cost us a match, and these random team updates, I'm bringing the rules out on the field with me.

That wouldn't be a very smart Idea. A robot that is supported by a ringer at the end of the match is worth no points.

[Joel J]

Originally Posted by Corey Balint

Pardon my ignorance, what did Stang actually do?
I mean I think I know, but I am unsure.

At least one of their alliance partners were dead in a match. They (wildstang) placed the dead alliance partner on top of the third robot in the alliance. Wildstang went out and tried to score, etc, and the other two robots stayed in the end zone for a 30 point bonus.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by Kevin Kolodziej

I don't like that the ruling has been changed now, after the strategy was actually used, when the very question was asked in the Q/A forum back in January and it was given the go-ahead.

I'm fine with not allowing it...but don't allow it from the start next time!

I revise my earlier opinion. A complete reversal when the question was asked a week after kickoff and given the go ahead and a team was obviously thinking about it is just plain wrong. The Zone Zeal tape measure decision was bad enough with allowing previously illegal mechanisms after build season. But outlawing a strategy after build? That you'd already been asked about? I think the GDC made a pretty large slip-up here.

[TheOtherGuy]

It's good entertainment watching everyone's pre-game strategies go to waste!

[Justin]

Why do I have a disturbing feeling that we are heading for another Update 16 debacle. It seems interesting to me that FIRST wouldn't have learned their less on that one. Also I say props to WildStang for thinking of this one haven't seen anyone else try this in any of the last 3 regionals I've been at/watched I guess because of the size restriction issue. Once again the action of FIRST reversing it's decision mid-season seems far worse than the decision itself. Although this used to be the norm and it may make things more interesting sometimes. I guess FIRST should put a disclaimer in the manual "rules are subject to change until the last match has been played on Einstein in Atlanta."

-Justin

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by Cody Carey

That wouldn't be a very smart Idea. A robot that is supported by a ringer at the end of the match is worth no points.

Well, at about half the regionals the refs are removing keepers regardless of position. So, they either remove the keeper and you get the 30 points, or they leave it there and you are no worse off than before (you would only use this strategy with 2 nonfunctional robots).

[TVan]

I would very disappoined If the #1 seed was picking teams by how they stacked Just pile up some junk in the cornner and throw for ringers Im glad they made the change.

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by TVan

I would very disappoined If the #1 seed was picking teams by how they stacked Just pile up some junk in the cornner and throw for ringers Im glad they made the change.

Well, not junk exactly. Your junk-bot would have to pass inspection before you could pile it in the corner.

Seriously, I can see both sides of this one. If the rule hadn't been changed, there would have likely been some teams put in the position TVan describes above, and what kind of inspiration is that?

But I can also see the side that says you don't change the rules in the middle of the game. (Jump in any time, Tristan.)

[Dave Flowerday]

Originally Posted by Joel J.

At least one of their alliance partners were dead in a match.

Actually, both robots were non-functional at the time. Our alliance would not have done it otherwise (who would choose to go 1-on-3 on purpose?). And despite what others have posted on here, the refs did not disable either robot. The teams in the stack chose to E-Stop themselves right after autonomous just to make sure nothing moved and caused the top one to fall.

[Nuttyman54]

190 actually considered making a robot which would start like this, with a partner on top. Their wheels would be on some sort of rollers/tracks which would control the drivetrain below. The intent was the have them driving our base, and ensure the 30 points. Logistics and other things kept us from doing it, but it was a legit strategy that was considered. If any teams that have not competed decided to do this, they've just been shafted.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Rob

Would it work to have a ringer between the two stacked robots? The rule says you can't touch other robots but the ringer would be between. It would be fun to see the head ref try to remove the ringer at the end of autonomous.

RAZ

But doesn't it say you can only be in contact with one tube at a time. So if you had a tube between robots niether one can put a tube on rack.

[Nuttyman54]

Originally Posted by BobC

But doesn't it say you can only be in contact with one tube at a time. So if you had a tube between robots niether one can put a tube on rack.

The point of this setup is that both robots are non-operational, and thus would otherwise be of no use to the alliance. In the scenario at Midwest, one incapacitated robot was placed on top of the other incapacitated robot, thus contributing 30 points to their alliance.

[Cory]

2002 all over again...

at least this time it's not as big a deal as it was before.

[KathieK]

Well, I'm not taking sides on the Update issue but I applaud the "thinking outside the box" strategy. Creativity and thinking outside the box are skills that are still valued by some companies, aren't they?

[ChuckDickerson]

Interesting. I think I am starting to see a pattern here:

drill presses = OK (at kickoff)
drill presses = NOT OK (middle of competition season)
(everyone raises a stink)
drill presses = OK (again)

stacking robots at the start of the match = OK (at kickoff)
stacking robots at the start of the match = NOT OK (middle of competition season)
(everyone raises a stink)
stacking robots at the start of the match = ????????

I personally think that this strategy would be used so very rarely because of the risk involved that why in the world should it have even been a blip on FIRST’s radar. Does FIRST think that this strategy is such a problem that it in effect deserves it’s own team update? Good grief. Why can’t we just get a clear set of rules in the beginning and just stick with them the whole season. Doesn’t FIRST have enough to worry about as it is without making a “new” rule for something that has, as far as I know, only happened once? And even then, wouldn’t have made a difference in the outcome of the match because the score reflected that they would have won anyway (1 on 3 BTW). Most people got a good laugh and thought, “Now that was a cool idea, we should have thought of that!” Now that someone was creative but within the rules, FIRST has to go and make an example out of them I guess. I really have to wonder what is the big deal. I suppose FIRST doesn’t really like creativity after all. FIRST wrote the rules, the question was asked in the Q&A to make sure it was legal, and now FIRST doesn’t like it. Can’t FIRST just roll with it like everyone else and say “That was a good one, you got us.”