Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?

[EricH]

Originally Posted by lemon1324

This rule in its wording implies that you can break the plane if the robot never crosses that line. Thus, as 190's robot never crosses any lines in the entire match, their mechanism is perfectly legal. Granted, that's rather lawyering it, but anything to help a great team. Congratulations on going for the cool idea rather than the safe one.

The robot is considered to have crossed the line already. That's in the Q&A. So it's breaking the plane of a line it's crossed. Good try, but not quite good enough.

[Racer26]

The Q&A can say it Eric, but its not a rule until its in the rulebook, via a team update. <G22> does not indicate that its implied that a robot has "crossed" the lane marker adjacent to it at the start of the match, and thus I feel that 190's mech, AND any robots whose autonomous is breaking the plane of that line are immune from <G22> because the wording of <G22> says "Once a robot has CROSSED...", and since they never CROSSED any lines, they can't get a G22 penalty.

[Richard McClellan]

Originally Posted by 1075guy

The Q&A can say it Eric, but its not a rule until its in the rulebook, via a team update. <G22> does not indicate that its implied that a robot has "crossed" the lane marker adjacent to it at the start of the match, and thus I feel that 190's mech, AND any robots whose autonomous is breaking the plane of that line are immune from <G22> because the wording of <G22> says "Once a robot has CROSSED...", and since they never CROSSED any lines, they can't get a G22 penalty.

Everything in the Q&A is part of the official rules. Our team had to consult the Q&A at the Championship last year during inspection regarding the 100" rectangle I think and the inspectors changed their minds after seeing the Q&A. In our situation, the Q&A information was simply a clarification to a somewhat ambiguous rule, which is the same situation being debated regarding <G22>

[SteveJanesch]

At the risk of sounding too harsh, I have to say sorry, guys, but I just don't have any sympathy for 190 here. They've been doing FRC a long time and have demonstrated the ability to build great robots within the rules of the game. It's pretty clear to me that they conceived, designed, and deliberately built a robot that is in the gray area of the rules. They didn't write the GDC and say "here's exactly what we're trying to do: is it legal?", but danced around it by asking from what height they could drop the ball. I have to believe they had time to ask directly if what they were doing was legal and get a response. Others here have admitted to thinking of similar designs and abandoned them because it wasn't clear whether it was legal or not. 190 proceeded and got caught out. That's the way it works when you play it close to the edge - sometimes you go over. Learn from your mistake, and better luck next year.

Steve

[Tapoore]

Originally Posted by stj_1533

They didn't write the GDC and say "here's exactly what we're trying to do: is it legal?", but danced around it by asking from what height they could drop the ball. I have to believe they had time to ask directly if what they were doing was legal and get a response.

Actually, I was talking to one of their mentors and he said that they had specifically contacted FIRST and had sent them a six page document outlining their design and why it complied with the rules. Apparently FIRST said it was OK (at that time). As a team, they work quite closely with FIRST, so maybe they contacted FIRST directly, not through the Q&A?

Tom

[Kingofl337]

When we went to BAE according to 190 and a document they created the robots idea was legal and they were protected under the "Protection from Hurdling" as long as they kept lifting the ball while it swung around. It's really to bad if that this has changed. I'm very surprised that none of the members of the team have posted.

[SteveJanesch]

Tom, Adam,

Thanks for enlightening me. There was no info available to me to suggest that 190 had contacted and been cleared by FIRST (GDC?) outside of Q&A. That puts a different spin on things. I'd be curious to see what exactly they sent to FIRST, what exactly the reply was, and how binding the reply was since there was no clarification made available to the community (or am I ignorant of something important again?). I may be developing some sympathy here...

And let me add, since I didn't say it before, that the idea is ingenious. I can't take anything away from the team on that. Really really clever, great job of problem solving.

I'm still going back and forth on this. Since I don't and won't know exactly what was said/written by/to whom and when, I'm going back to the sidelines. The new knowledge doesn't change my basic feeling about the whole thing: that when you play it close to the edge, sometimes you go over. When you take a big risk, sometimes you win big and sometimes you lose big. That's what happens in the real world - part of the lesson that FIRST is trying to teach.

Steve

EDIT: The other real-world thing that's going on here is that the rules (or their interpretation) are subject to change at any time. FIRST does a good (perhaps not perfect) job of not letting this happen, but it just isn't the case in business. In twenty years of design, every single product I've worked on has had some (or many) spec or customer requirement change after they were "frozen". Be glad when they don't change, but be prepared when they do.

[T3_1565]

Originally Posted by stj_1533

They didn't write the GDC and say "here's exactly what we're trying to do: is it legal?

Steve

Although granted, THEY didn't ask, someone else did as I posted earlier in the thread (see here) and yes the question asks about the legality of EXACTLY what they ended up doing.

and yes GDC said it to be legal, at that time. Although they seemed to have changed there minds now...

[StevenB]

Originally Posted by tapoore

Actually, I was talking to one of their mentors and he said that they had specifically contacted FIRST and had sent them a six page document outlining their design and why it complied with the rules. Apparently FIRST said it was OK (at that time). As a team, they work quite closely with FIRST, so maybe they contacted FIRST directly, not through the Q&A?

With all due respect toward 190 and their design, talking directly with FIRST is not an official means of rule clarification. What anyone at FIRST says has about the game has no weight unless it is in the Game Manual, Q&A, or official update.

For those wondering, I'm pretty sure 190 is not finished competing. They are one of the original teams, so they always have a ticket to nationals. They also attend one or more off-season competitions.

[SteveJanesch]

T3,

I stand further corrected and enlightened. Thanks and apologies.

Steve

[Ken Stafford]

Wow—what a controversy! I guess it’s time we rolled in with a few clarifying remarks… Regarding “why” we chose such a strategy: every FRC team eventually develops an identity, whether it be incredibly robust KISS robots, amazing effective offensive machines, awesome driver teams, blow-you-away manufacturing quality and appearance…just as there is no “right” team demographic/organization, there is no “right” team vision other than to meet the needs of the students. Those who know Team 190 well will probably agree that the team’s vision is not to be super competitive—in fact I’d argue that we have won fewer tournaments than any other legacy team. The team motto is actually “WOW over WIN”. Due to our unusual 2-year high school, our team complement is always over 50% rookies—a good situation for ambitious innovation, a poor situation for evolved, mature designs/driver crews.

We started this season with 2 competing designs, an uber-fast speed-bot and a reasonably conventional hurdler. Neither satisfied the team’s desire to be “out-of-the-box”. When our 2 youngest team members suggested our current strategy it immediately appealed to the team. We were worried about the legality of it and especially the tendency (as in 2K5) for the GDC to modify/clarify rules during the season to meet their expectations. We thoroughly researched all the potential issues and kept close track of the developing trends through the Q&A and updates. We had a fall-back position in case the strategy became unviable. The more we developed the design, the more convinced we became that it would be legal, especially after Team 2158 received an “ok” to their question…but VERY HARD to accomplish. It required several design features that we had never seen in FRC robots of past.

We were prepared to support the legality of the design and methodology to comply with the intent and words of all the rules (including G-22) when we arrived at the Granite State Regional. We were pleased when it was approved there by members of the GDC, senior FIRST staff, and the referees. The fact that it has now been twice-inspected, twice-approved, and, in fact, twice-awarded (Rockwell Innovation in Control, GSR; Xerox Creativity, SVR) for exactly this strategy and execution serves only to confirm our position.

Contrary to perhaps some opinions, this effort was not about breaking/”lawyering” the rules, but rather being innovative both in design and strategy (frankly at the expense of being particularly competitive). Rather than build a perfect Toyota, we chose to build an Audi…

The team is rightfully proud of this robot and we are not finished competing with it (or tweaking it for that matter!)—see you in Atlanta.

Go FIRST!

Ken Stafford
Team Leader
FRC #190
WPI/Mass Academy

[EricH]

Originally Posted by 1075guy

The Q&A can say it Eric, but its not a rule until its in the rulebook, via a team update. <G22> does not indicate that its implied that a robot has "crossed" the lane marker adjacent to it at the start of the match, and thus I feel that 190's mech, AND any robots whose autonomous is breaking the plane of that line are immune from <G22> because the wording of <G22> says "Once a robot has CROSSED...", and since they never CROSSED any lines, they can't get a G22 penalty.

It's an interpretation issue. Q&A is for interpretation. By the way, here is the Q&A in question: http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=8187
So NOT immune by any stretch of the imagination.

[chaoticprout]

Originally Posted by Ken Stafford

Contrary to perhaps some opinions, this effort was not about breaking/”lawyering” the rules, but rather being innovative both in design and strategy (frankly at the expense of being particularly competitive).

After spending a day with team 190 in 2006 during our BAE Systems trip, team 1138 has grown a profound respect for 190 and their classic outside of the box thinking. While I won't comment on the legality situation since it's pretty clear that it's illegal (which I agreed with the whole time) now that the GDC has spoken about G22, I think the negativity towards 190 and the "lawyering" accusations are simply unfounded.

[Jeff Waegelin]

My question: if you need to document the legality of your machine to make a case to the inspectors, are you really following the intent of the rules? I don't really like the term "lawyering" the rules (I feel it's gotten clichéd here), but this would seem to be a textbook example. A robot should be able to prove that it meets the rules without supporting documentation. Out of the box designs are great, and should be encouraged, but being able to play within the rules is part of the design challenge.

[T3_1565]

Originally Posted by Ken Stafford

The team is rightfully proud of this robot and we are not finished competing with it (or tweaking it for that matter!)—see you in Atlanta.

Go FIRST!

Ken Stafford
Team Leader
FRC #190
WPI/Mass Academy

I'm glad one of you guys finally came on this thread to comment!

Furthmore I would like to congratulate you on being the first robot this year I said "wow... I should of thought of that.." to.

I hope things are better for you in Atlanta