YMTC: SUPPORT/NOT SUPPORT (ramping)

[ALIBI]

A robot deploys two ramps that when climbed elevate robots to 13 inches. It is clear that there are no game pieces beneath the robot, ramps or ramp supports. A six wheeled robot climbs on top of the ramp with all six wheels clearly being supported by the ramp. When the power is cut, the arm on the ramped robot settles down on top of a game piece that was in its original position on the floor against the alliance station wall. When the field has come to rest the referees remove the game piece and the arm settles down another inch or so, even after the game piece is removed the the arm remains well above 13 inches. The arm never made contact with the alliance station wall. Should the referees rule that the robot was supported by the game piece or that the robot was not supported by the game piece?

[Don Wright]

It was supported...no bonus.

[wingnut1705]

If the arm settled after the game piece was removed, then it was supported.
No bonus

[EricH]

Originally Posted by ALIBI

A robot deploys two ramps that when climbed elevate robots to 13 inches. It is clear that there are no game pieces beneath the robot, ramps or ramp supports. A six wheeled robot climbs on top of the ramp with all six wheels clearly being supported by the ramp. When the power is cut, the arm on the ramped robot settles down on top of a game piece that was in its original position on the floor against the alliance station wall. When the field has come to rest the referees remove the game piece and the arm settles down another inch or so, even after the game piece is removed the the arm remains well above 13 inches. The arm never made contact with the alliance station wall. Should the referees rule that the robot was supported by the game piece or that the robot was not supported by the game piece?

Impossible situation. (13" ringers, the arm settles down an inch, and is well above 13 inches) The arm is below 12 inches, and "supported" is not defined in the manual. I see no call for removing the ringer to check, though that is one way. The only thing keeping this robot from being ramped is the arm. I believe the rules apply to anything on the robot--a piece of wire below 12" means the 4" bonus. The arm is supported by the tube (it sags when the tube is removed). No bonus for the ramped robot. If there is a second ramped robot, it would get the points.

[The Lucas]

Probably should add a poll

I would say the ramped robot was defiantly supported by the game piece since its arm moved after piece was removed. No points for that one ramped bot but another bot behind it could score if it is not supported by the first ramped bot (transitive).

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Ramped bot was supported.

No bonus points.

[whytheheckme]

I don't know...

At BAE in NH, we were on a ramp bot. In the end, one of our bumpers wound up touching *touching* the alliance station wall. It was just the corner of the bumper, and it was obvious that this in no way affected the height of the robot. Had we driven a quarter of an inch short, this would not have happened. The ref called 0 points. Not even the 4" bonus. So this is not *supported*, but the rule clearly states that your bot can not be touching a game element... so I say no points.

Jacob

[smurfgirl]

The rules say that a robot cannot be supported by the field or a field object/gamepiece. This is a use of the transitive property to say that a robot supported by a robot supported by a gamepiece violates this aspect of the rules. But take away the tube and use the transitive property the same way: a robot is supported by a robot supported by the carpet, part of the field. This, again, would be a rules violation... but we know that it is not, so for consistency's sake the tube should not be, either. I suppose the refs can remove/deflate the tube to check the height without it, if they need to verify that aspect of it.

The reason why I don't like this call is because it's inconsistent from match to match, from regional to regional. I wouldn't mind so much if FIRST could just standardize this rule and get it in print so the refs and the drivers know how to interpret it and can act accordingly. This way there won't be any surprises or confusion at the end of any given match.

[LightWaves1636]

something like that happened to us. We couldn't believe they wouldn't give us the points. Our arm was down but the extension was still out and we couldn't see it until we went to the side. We ended up tying the match. The extension wasn't supported by the ground or anything, it was below four inches, so they didn't give us the points.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by smurfgirl

The rules say that a robot cannot be supported by the field or a field object/gamepiece. This is a use of the transitive property to say that a robot supported by a robot supported by a gamepiece violates this aspect of the rules. But take away the tube and use the transitive property the same way: a robot is supported by a robot supported by the carpet, part of the field.

You're misstating (or misunderstanding) the rules. <G56> says that in order to receive the bonus, a robot must be "...not in contact with any element of the field (carpet, alliance station, goal, etc.), not supported by a GAME PIECE,..." There's no restriction on being supported by the field, only on being supported by a tube.

[Alex Golec]

To keep the calls consistent with what I have seen at three regionals this year (though they were all Michigan regionals) - there is no bonus. The robot's arm is supported by the tube at the end of the match, and by <G56>, there is no bonus for that robot.

I know it may seem asinine, but that is how it is written and how it has been enforced.

If that were my team, I would learn to get the arm out of the way and tucked back within the robot before the end of the match.

[end of two cent write-up]

_Alex

[mtaman02]

0 Points awarded, The robot is considered to be supported by the game element. I personally don't like that rule but eh what can you do. =(