|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
Team Update #14
Update #14 has been posted. No rules have been amended.
http://www.usfirst.org/uploadedFiles...pdate%2014.pdf |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Team Update #14
Quote:
|
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Team Update #14
I love how they describe the end of hybrid.
When the clock hits zero, you can step forward. fantastic. |
|
#4
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Team Update #14
Quote:
That has actually always been the rule (and was in past years, too). It just has never been explicitly stated that well, and there is always some confusion and inconsistency from event to event. I'm glad that they made it plain and clear in this update. |
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Team Update #14
It is nice to see that the GDC has seen fit to explain the deletion of section 9.4.2.
We could have really used our pit crew during eliminations but our referee crew chose to read this rule elimination as 'NO PIT CREWS DURING ELIMINATION ROUNDS" rather than the way GDC has intended it. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Team Update #14
I am honestly confused about this update. Why didnt they talk about blocking/impeding in hybrid mode. I really dont know why they didnt clarify this.
Joey |
|
#7
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Team Update #14
Quote:
|
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Team Update #14
We had plenty of room in Oregon and the addition of one additional Pit Crew member would have been very helpful if even just to handle the batteries.
Our pit crew is a vital part of our team (as is probably true for most teams...) and to exclude their presence was tough on them after last year. I can appreciate small venues and the limitations therein... I just think that in our case the referees/staff resorted to the rule book without looking at intent and this new update will make it easier for them to understand intent. It is a good thing... and I appreciate that FIRST has recognized it and given us this update. |
|
#9
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Team Update #14
Quote:
|
|
#10
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Team Update #14
In St. Louis we allowed two extra team members to accompany each robot during eliminations. I (as the FTA) advised the Lead Queuer and the Field Supervisor of this site-specific policy. It was based on floor space available, placement of judges, media, fixed barriers, etc. The policy needs to be site-specific for those reasons.
I agree with FIRST's decision to delete 9.4.2 and let the policy fit each site. |
|
#11
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Team Update #14
Yea see I wasn't sure who I talked to, I know I asked the FTA and we (the FTA, myself (Lead Queuer) and the Field Supv. all talked about it and agreed on one person only b/c of space and current layout constraints)
I agree that each site should make the right decision on their own instead of having a set amount. |
|
#12
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Team Update #14
I didn't see anything that needs to be clarified. The people who think the GDC's answer has discrepancies with the manual seem to be misreading the phrase "blocking the track" as if it meant "getting in the way of a single robot". Reading it as written should clear up any confusion.
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Team Update #13 | Mark McLeod | General Forum | 19 | 29-02-2008 09:59 |
| Team Update 17 | ntroup | General Forum | 33 | 14-03-2007 16:58 |
| Team Update #1 | Mark McLeod | Rules/Strategy | 19 | 11-01-2007 22:28 |
| Team Update #8 | rbayer | General Forum | 7 | 30-01-2003 01:32 |
| Team Update #7 Up | Steven Carmain | General Forum | 5 | 27-01-2003 23:15 |