First CROSSING not being scored?

[Justin Montois]

Originally Posted by martin417

This thread sounds like a bunch of liberals! "I think..." and "I feel..." The rules are published at the kick-off, and are (and should be) gospel. These rules are used throughout the build as a basis for design and strategy. There should be nothing open to interpretations and feelings.

The rules <G06> clearly state that during tele-op, every time a robot crosses its own finish line it receives 2 points, and <G07> if a robot has crossed it's own finish line, it must cross the opponents' finish line before it can score again.

There is no "interpretation" about this rule, and no mention of completing a lap. At the start of tele-op, if a robot did not move during hybrid, it has not crossed its own finish line, therefore it should receive 2 points.

Teams should not have to analyze the "spirit" of every rule to try and figure out what the framers meant, or they would not be able to design anything.

My 2 cents.

We're merely expressing an opinion on what FIRST should do about this "mistake" in the scoring. I can read the rule but FIRST still needs to address it and either explain why it's not being counted, or as you have stated, the Rule is simply stated and the scoring system should be adjusted. The opinions come in when you start discussing what to do in terms of it being fair to adjust a scoring system after five regional have already been completed.

This is a message board so I expect people to come with their own opinions.

[Kevin Sevcik]

I'll agree with the others that have stated that we need to read the rules and work off what we read there using good common sense. Declarations of "Well I haven't read the rules, but this is how it should be." Aren't particularly helpful, as they add zero additional data to the discussion. Presumably, the people who can declare opinions like that that actually matter are the members of the GDC. One would hope they have in fact read the rules.

Back on topic, The GDC has said that all robots are assumed to have CROSSED lane markers at the start of the match, and thus will still be penalized for anti-crossing them. So there's a little guidance out there saying that robots are already considered to have crossed lines at the start of a match. There isn't any guidance as to which other lines and in what order, but it could presumably give the GDC an out to simply state that a robot is considered to have already CROSSED its own finish line at the start of the match.

[martin417]

Originally Posted by jgannon

EDIT: Since there don't appear to be any glaring holes in my logic, I have posted a Q&A to bring this issue to FIRST's attention. Hopefully we will hear the official word before this weekend.

Still no response from GDC? I have been checking the Q&A, but haven't seen anything. Are they in a quandary?

[Mark McLeod]

Response

Team Update #15

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by martin417

Still no response from GDC? I have been checking the Q&A, but haven't seen anything. Are they in a quandary?

It could be that they are busy.

Or it may be that this requires a rule change, but one which will not have any impact. In other words, they believed that the scoring program is correct (if indeed it doesn't score the first crossing if the robot hasn't left the home stretch in hybrid). If a rule change is necessary, to correct the rules to what has been happening in practice, it would come out in a Team Update. They have typically waited to issue the Q&A response until the Update appears.

Please note that the word "lap" is only used in the Game section of the rules in two contexts:
(1) In the first paragraph in a generalized description of the game
(2) In reference to the LAP INDICATOR
In all other instances, for example the scoring rules, "CROSS" (or some form of the word) is used.

I missed the Team Update 15 noted above before answering. My hunch was right, the scoring program was written in accordance with what the GDC intended the rule to be.

[Zyik]

Originally Posted by Mark McLeod

Response

http://www.usfirst.org/uploadedFiles...pdate%2015.pdf

Nice, answered in an update.

[petek]

Thanks to Joey Gannon (and Karthk) for identifying this and posting it to the Q&A. I'm glad to see it clarified!

[martin417]

Apparently, I offended some people with the "tone" of my post. I apologize, that was not my intention. I was trying for levity, but apparently missed . In the end, the GDC admitted that the wording was misleading, but went with the intent of the rule.

I realize that it is extremely difficult to write a set of rules to meet an intent for a game that cannot be interpreted differently from that intent, and I applaud the efforts of the GDC to create a fair environment for all teams.