Reasoning of the GDC

[JesseK]

5.) Veteran teams lawyer the rules to H*** and back.
6.) Many veteran teams are willing to assist the rookie teams, if the rookie teams ask.
7.) The answer to the universe and everything is 42. Perhaps a CV of .32 is a random number, or a generated number based upon safety, or a number based upon possible suppliers for the KOP. Who knows

[martin417]

Originally Posted by JesseK

5.) Veteran teams lawyer the rules to H*** and back.
6.) Many veteran teams are willing to assist the rookie teams, if the rookie teams ask.
7.) The answer to the universe and everything is 42. Perhaps a CV of .32 is a random number, or a generated number based upon safety, or a number based upon possible suppliers for the KOP. Who knows

5) I have always had a problem with complaints about "lawyering" the rules. If we don't understand a rule, how can we follow it? All the discussion I have seen about rules, especially the fastener protrusion rule has to do with understanding the rule or trying to clear up inconsistencies (allowing pockets for fastener protrusions, but fastener protrusions are illegal).

Every team should make every effort to fully understand all rules so they won't be surprised at inspection. Don't complain about attempts to understand.

6) this is not a criteria
7) Neither is this

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by martin417

I have always had a problem with complaints about "lawyering" the rules. If we don't understand a rule, how can we follow it?
...
Every team should make every effort to fully understand all rules so they won't be surprised at inspection. Don't complain about attempts to understand.

My comments were more directed at philosophies that seek to exploit rules in order to simply get a win at the expense of sportsmanship/GP. Those philosophies are abundant and obvious to anyone who reads the Q&A. If I remember correctly there was even a seminar in Atlanta last year on (and I'm paraphrasing here...) 'How to Win, Period'. While I don't wholeheartedly disagree with that line of thinking due to the fringe ideas it produces, those philosophies are what expose loopholes in the wording of the rules that are against the obvious (to me...) intent of the rule. Thus I'm sure there is much consideration given to such philosophies, ergo the sometimes odd or constricting wording of the rules. It would seem apparent that the less word play to find a niche strategy, the better off a team is. A perfect example is 190 in 2008 (I hate to call their design out, but it's the epitome of what I'm describing).

If a rookie team can't put everything in their head at once to ensure conformity across the entire rulebook, then it should be up to the veteran teams to step in and help them come competition time. Turning a blind eye to it simply hurts the overall morale and sustainability of that team and by association the overall Regional. While that situation may not be a direct criteria for a ruling, it is probably present enough in reality that the GDC doesn't even need to consider such specific scenarios as what you described.

[Andrew Y.]

i agree with martin all the way. Seems every year the rules become more and more complicated. Its like i have to read, research, ponder, research, twiddle my thump then i MAY have a smiggin of a clue on what its saying...then its all changed a week later and the same process is happening!

Also, the updates should be to correct errors and clarify rules, this year the updates seem to be a bit "CHANGING RULES...TKE THAT!!"..
MAybe first should take the manual from the engineers to proof read it? things like the tunnel dimension differences is ridiculous! What if my robot was 1/2 too big?....it should be allowed through inspections

I am a firm believer that FIRST needs too find ways to lower the cost to teams. Yes there are teams out there with solid funding, but there are more teams out there with VERY limited funds and resources.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Martin,
I believe the GDC adds in certain rules to provide constraints to make teams think harder. I see these as "virtual gravity" rules and sizing fits into that grouping.

No comment on Team Update #7 at this time.

[Andrew Y.]

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

Martin,
I believe the GDC adds in certain rules to provide constraints to make teams think harder. .

haha or to raise my blood pressure

[coldfusion1279]

I would be curious to see what percentage of active teams have a member that is dedicated to checking CD forums or Q&A etc.

If there is a problem with information about relaying finer points of rules to the entire FIRST community, then maybe they should take a different approach to clarifying rules. I don't know what the next step is... emailing everybody everything seems a bit excessive, but something like this?

I do not think one can blame teams for trying work around the rules a little.

We do not have the luxury of other sports where the rules are consistent and fine tuned after years, yes YEARS of gameplay and critique. Every year in FIRST, there are going to be minor inconsistencies or unclear statements in the rules that could dramatically effect the game play.

A PERFECT example of this is the 2006 AIM HIGH game, in which there was a speed limit on initial ball velocity out of the shooter for safety reasons. I never recall any checks on actual ball velocity during competition, but I remember our team followed the rule strictly, while other bots had the ball flying out twice as fast.... Teams that shot at higher velocity could shoot from further... I know shooting faster could have helped many teams.

Could that be the difference between the horizontal component of velocity and velocity regardless of direction? Maybe... Was this ever explicitly clarified by the GDC? Maybe, I don't remember, but even if it was, our team never would have known because our team didn't have avid subscribers to Q&A forums back then...

My point is that both of these opinions are correct. "Lawyering" could lead to unfair advantages, so the GDC tries to set a rule on everything, even valves, just for consistency reasons. However, questioning the rules could be the only way to make the game better for everyone... point out inconsistencies in game play, as well as allowing your team to design an optimal and legal robot for the season.

Anyway, I need to get back to work...

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Originally Posted by coldfusion1279

A PERFECT example of this is the 2006 AIM HIGH game, in which there was a speed limit on initial ball velocity out of the shooter for safety reasons. I never recall any checks on actual ball velocity during competition, but I remember our team followed the rule strictly, while other bots had the ball flying out twice as fast.... Teams that shot at higher velocity could shoot from further... I know that would have

Inspectors had access to a ball velocity test jig and used it frequently. Inspectors and refs were in constant contact to check teams coming off the field to insure that this specification was met. We take our jobs seriously.

[coldfusion1279]

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

Inspectors had access to a ball velocity test jig and used it frequently. Inspectors and refs were in constant contact to check teams coming off the field to insure that this specification was met. We take our jobs seriously.

Interesting, I guess my memory is a little foggy, my apologies, and there was no intent of ragging on judges for skipping checkpoints. I merely thought it was an 'honors system' type arrangement.

Nonetheless my point remains: our team thought we were following the rule very carefully, when clearly we could have enhanced our shooter even further.

Questioning rules allows more latitude in the creative thought process, but can offer unfair advantages to those who are privy to rule updates and discussion.

Like I said, it would be interesting to see what percentage of teams have someone avidly follow CD or Q&A etc.

[Aren_Hill]

Originally Posted by coldfusion1279

Interesting, I guess my memory is a little foggy, my apologies, and there was no intent of ragging on judges for skipping checkpoints. I merely thought it was an 'honors system' type arrangement.

Nonetheless my point remains: our team thought we were following the rule very carefully, when clearly we could have enhanced our shooter even further.

Questioning rules allows more latitude in the creative thought process, but can offer unfair advantages to those who are privy to rule updates and discussion.

Like I said, it would be interesting to see what percentage of teams have someone avidly follow CD or Q&A etc.

They definitely had speed testers that year, consistency between regionals would be one thing that may have varied. In St. Louis our team had many complaints from others about "shooting too fast" and we spent ~2 hours at that test rig proving we didnt. Turns out alot of backspin creates a flatter trajectory, who knew