G27

[Jake177]

In 2004, a large ball possessed by a robot counted as part of the robot. Under that rule, I believe using a track ball in your possession to knock another track ball off an overpass would be a rule violation. I don't see any such rule in this year's manual, but that doesn't mean it won't be there. I suspect that the status of such a ball will be clearly defined by an update.

As a side note, I like to think the 2004 rule was put in place because of something my former team (177) did at the 2001 Hartford Regional. Our robot had one of the big balls in its claw when it fell across the field barrier. The robot landed such that the ball was between the top of it and the floor outside of the field. After about five minutes of searching through the rule book, the refs couldn't find anything about such a situations, and the robot was ruled to be in bounds.

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by Jake177

In 2004, a large ball possessed by a robot counted as part of the robot. Under that rule, I believe using a track ball in your possession to knock another track ball off an overpass would be a rule violation. I don't see any such rule in this year's manual, but that doesn't mean it won't be there. I suspect that the status of such a ball will be clearly defined by an update.

As a side note, I like to think the 2004 rule was put in place because of something my former team (177) did at the 2001 Hartford Regional. Our robot had one of the big balls in its claw when it fell across the field barrier. The robot landed such that the ball was between the top of it and the floor outside of the field. After about five minutes of searching through the rule book, the refs couldn't find anything about such a situations, and the robot was ruled to be in bounds.

OK, so now it is time to bring this up again this year. As we have to remind everyone, rules from prior year's games DO NOT apply to this year's competition! If you make any assumptions about how a rule will or will not be interpreted based on how a similar rules may be have been interpreted in the past, you run the significant risk of being wrong. And if you base any of your robot design decisions on such a conclusion, you run the significant risk of having to do real-time rebuilds at your first competition. If you have any question about how a rule will be interpreted or implemented, the ONLY way to get an official determination is to get a specific reference from the Manual or the FIRST Q&A. Nothing else - including any answers provided by the well-meaning folks here on CD - has any meaning at all.

-dave

[Jake177]

I didn't mean to assume that the rule from 2004 would apply this year. I only meant to point out that a specific rule about the definition of a ball possessed by a robot had existed in past years, and would probably exist again. I didn't mean to imply how the rule would define it.

[dlavery]

Jake -

Don't sweat it. The post was not specifically targeted at you. Your message just provided the convenient catalyst that was needed to bring up the "don't rely upon previous game rules for this year's game" topic, which does need to be refreshed in people's memory every year.

-dave