Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?

[Michael Corsetto]

Originally Posted by 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.

With the way rules are varying in interpretation from regional to regional, I think getting the documentation was a very smart and necessary thing to do. Take SVR for instance, where a simple rule like G14 was consistently misinterpreted, even after teams talked with the refs to point out otherwise. I love the innovative spirit of team 190, one of my favorite robots to this day is their 2004 robot that hung in autonomous, and I think any claims that they are ignorant to the rules is simply ridiculous. Awesome robot this year 190, and I hope your strategy doesn't get thrown out because the GDC decided to change their mind.

Mike C.

[Jeff Waegelin]

Originally Posted by Rex114

With the way rules are varying in interpretation from regional to regional, I think getting the documentation was a very smart and necessary thing to do.

I think you missed my point. My point is, a team shouldn't need to bring documentation to prove why their entire strategy is legal. Any time you do that, you're in a very shaky area. You're putting your ability to compete at the judgement of the inspectors, referees, and GDC (if it gets that far). At the very least, tread lightly, and don't be surprised when a Q&A or Team Update comes out to invalidate that strategy.

[Rick TYler]

Originally Posted by 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?

It's not our job to fathom the intent of the rules, only to follow them. To drag out some well-worn sports cliches, the football world didn't take to the forward pass right away, and the racing world was stunned when Colin Chapman built rear-engined, lightweight cars to compete with the heavier, front-engined cars of the time. The most famous example is probably in the America's Cup regatta when a New Zealand team challenged Dennis Connor using a "big boat" following the original deed of grant for the America's Cup, despite the fact that the regatta had been conducted with 12-meter sloops since World War II. Connor responded with another tradition-breaking solution by entering a big catamaran. Sailors are still grumbling about the regatta, saying that both the Kiwis and Connor were gaming the system. They weren't -- the were using the rules as written to optimize their chances of winning, just like Chapman and the pioneers of modern football.

It's one thing to lawyer the rules -- which I take to mean fixing on a small discrepancy in the rules to win at something which you would not otherwise win, and taking advantage of the opportunities inherent in an open-class mechanical competition (which is why I keep thinking of sailing and automotive examples, I suppose -- remember winged keels, rear-engined top-fuel dragsters, and the Ford GT40s in Le Mans?).

I can't speak to the intricacies of <G22> as it relates to a stationary robot passing a ball around the quadrants. Given the definition of "CROSSING," my head throbs just thinking about it. This could easily have been prevented, however, if the GDC had just said that the Lane Marker did not exist underneath the Lane Divider, as no one would then have attempted this strategy. I think by making the Lane Marker extend the whole length of the arena, the GDC was practically asking for someone to build a stationary ball-twirling robot.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Rick TYler

It's not our job to fathom the intent of the rules, only to follow them. To drag out some well-worn sports cliches, the football world didn't take to the forward pass right away, and the racing world was stunned when Colin Chapman built rear-engined, lightweight cars to compete with the heavier, front-engined cars of the time. The most famous example is probably in the America's Cup regatta when a New Zealand team challenged Dennis Connor using a "big boat" following the original deed of grant for the America's Cup, despite the fact that the regatta had been conducted with 12-meter sloops since World War II. Connor responded with another tradition-breaking solution by entering a big catamaran. Sailors are still grumbling about the regatta, saying that both the Kiwis and Connor were gaming the system. They weren't -- the were using the rules as written to optimize their chances of winning, just like Chapman and the pioneers of modern football.

It's one thing to lawyer the rules -- which I take to mean fixing on a small discrepancy in the rules to win at something which you would not otherwise win, and taking advantage of the opportunities inherent in an open-class mechanical competition (which is why I keep thinking of sailing and automotive examples, I suppose -- remember winged keels, rear-engined top-fuel dragsters, and the Ford GT40s in Le Mans?).

I can't speak to the intricacies of <G22> as it relates to a stationary robot passing a ball around the quadrants. Given the definition of "CROSSING," my head throbs just thinking about it. This could easily have been prevented, however, if the GDC had just said that the Lane Marker did not exist underneath the Lane Divider, as no one would then have attempted this strategy. I think by making the Lane Marker extend the whole length of the arena, the GDC was practically asking for someone to build a stationary ball-twirling robot.

I think it's really a moot point, because as another Q&A response pointed out (can't find it right now--forums.usfirst.org appears to be down for me), the GDC intended for the ball to be dropped from the height of the overpass, which 190 clearly does not do. That's pretty cut and dry to me.

[Kingofl337]

It's one thing to lawyer the rules -- which I take to mean fixing on a small discrepancy in the rules to win at something which you would not otherwise win, and taking advantage of the opportunities inherent in an open-class mechanical competition (which is why I keep thinking of sailing and automotive examples, I suppose -- remember winged keels, rear-engined top-fuel dragsters, and the Ford GT40s in Le Mans?).

I can't speak to the intricacies of <G22> as it relates to a stationary robot passing a ball around the quadrants. Given the definition of "CROSSING," my head throbs just thinking about it. This could easily have been prevented, however, if the GDC had just said that the Lane Marker did not exist underneath the Lane Divider, as no one would then have attempted this strategy. I think by making the Lane Marker extend the whole length of the arena, the GDC was practically asking for someone to build a stationary ball-twirling robot.

I agree this doesn't help things either.

[AdamHeard]

I love 190, they make some crazy designs that just "WOW" (to quote them) me every time I see them. Even this year's robot impressed me in it's design and build. The only quip I have with it is the rules lawyering; Both teams I worked with this year initially had this idea, but quickly shot it down as it was clearly illegal. It's not like 190 was the only to think of it, just only the ones bold enough to challenge the rules on it.

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.

Be sure to send them a resume.

[Rick TYler]

Originally Posted by Kingofl337

I agree this doesn't help things either.

A <G22> violation in action?

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Rick TYler

A <G22> violation in action?

And half those robots clearly violate the 80" rule... it's an animation. Has nothing to do with the rules.

Anyone who was "confused" by the animation's rule violations clearly didn't read the rules, because it becomes immediately obvious what you can and cannot do.

[Tom Schindler]

Originally Posted by Rick TYler

It's not our job to fathom the intent of the rules, only to follow them. To drag out some well-worn sports cliches, the football world didn't take to the forward pass right away, and the racing world was stunned when Colin Chapman built rear-engined, lightweight cars to compete with the heavier, front-engined cars of the time. The most famous example is probably in the America's Cup regatta when a New Zealand team challenged Dennis Connor using a "big boat" following the original deed of grant for the America's Cup, despite the fact that the regatta had been conducted with 12-meter sloops since World War II. Connor responded with another tradition-breaking solution by entering a big catamaran. Sailors are still grumbling about the regatta, saying that both the Kiwis and Connor were gaming the system. They weren't -- the were using the rules as written to optimize their chances of winning, just like Chapman and the pioneers of modern football.

Agreed, those are all great advances in the way the game/race is played within the rules. Operative word is "WITHIN".

Fortunately the football players never tried to use the sidelines as playing surfaces, colin Chapman never tried to 4-wheel it across the infield, and the New Zealand team didn't "Skip" a leg of the race by having a long arm that "crossed" all the checkpoints, as all of these would be fairly clearly against the rules of their particular events.

There is no doubt that 190 has come up with some very complex, inspiring and amazing robot designs over the years. As Ken said, some are not the most competitive designs; I think this is one of them. They are one of the few teams that i really look forward to seeing their robot at the first chance i get. The legality/illegality of this design has been beaten to death by this thread. 190 chose to go this route fully knowing that their design was "on the edge" of legality... And it has been pretty clearly show it is not legal.

Would I have gone down this design path for this years game? No Way.

Can i fault them for trying? Not my place to.

Is it entertaining to watch? Definitely.

Best of luck to 190 and to all teams, See you all in Atlanta!

Tom

[Greg Marra]

Originally Posted by The Lucas

The Blue Alliance basically separates championship into 5 events (the 4 divisions and Einstein). As a result, they don't really list teams going to the championships until divisions are posted (or they start guessing them ) . Maybe they should have a temporary event called the Championship since we all rely on them so much now

This is a great iea. I added a new event caled World Championships (All Divisons) that I will delete once the division lists come out.

[Racer26]

You guys claim that I'm lawyering that rule, when I am entirely not. Nowhere in the rulebook does it mention that at the beginning of a match a team is ASSUMED to have just CROSSED the lane marker adjacent to their home stretch, and I don't think its reasonable to expect teams to assume that. As I said before, Q&A is for clarification of how rules are being interpreted, not WHAT the rules ARE. If they're changing what the rules ARE, it MUST be put in a team update.

Since they never said that was the assumption (yes, they said it in the Q&A, but I submit that its not really said that way AT ALL in the rules, that the rules dont match that interpretation in any way). IF the rules said "robots that break the plane of the quadrant immediately clockwise of their current location are subject to a penalty", THEN I would agree with everyone, but thats not how its worded.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by 1075guy

You guys claim that I'm lawyering that rule, when I am entirely not. Nowhere in the rulebook does it mention that at the beginning of a match a team is ASSUMED to have just CROSSED the lane marker adjacent to their home stretch, and I don't think its reasonable to expect teams to assume that. As I said before, Q&A is for clarification of how rules are being interpreted, not WHAT the rules ARE. If they're changing what the rules ARE, it MUST be put in a team update.

Since they never said that was the assumption (yes, they said it in the Q&A, but I submit that its not really said that way AT ALL in the rules, that the rules dont match that interpretation in any way). IF the rules said "robots that break the plane of the quadrant immediately clockwise of their current location are subject to a penalty", THEN I would agree with everyone, but thats not how its worded.

Uhh, no offense, but if that's not lawyering the rule, what is?

[cziggy343]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Uhh, no offense, but if that's not lawyering the rule, what is?

im gonna have to agree on this one...

[Racer26]

OK fine, its a little lawyerish, but its not nearly as much as some of the 'lawyering' thats gone on in the past. The rules need to either state their assumptions, or be worded such that assumptions can't be/aren't necessary to be made. Way too many of the problems with the rules can be easily solved by WORDING the rule such that it can't be 'lawyered'.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by Rick TYler

It's not our job to fathom the intent of the rules, only to follow them.

Fortunately, the GDC has made it so we don't have to fathom the intent... they put it right in the manual. This is the third sentence in Section 7 of the manual:

The object of the game is to attain a higher score than your opponent by making counter-clockwise laps with your robot around the TRACK while moving large TRACKBALLS over and/or under the OVERPASS that bisects the TRACK.

Arguing about the letter of the rules is one thing, but the word "while" in that sentence makes the intent very clear.