Amusing Rule Inconsistency - Are All Robots Illegal?

[Chris is me]

I believe an unintended consequence of last Friday's Team Update is that it is now actually impossible to build a legal ROBOT that meets the definition of all of the rules. Obviously this isn't the intent of the GDC, and despite how the rules literally read it will never be enforced like this, but I thought it was kind of funny if nothing else.

Consider the change to the definition of ROBOT (change in bold):

ROBOT: an electromechanical assembly built by an FIRST Robotics Competition Team to perform specific tasks when competing in
FIRST STRONGHOLD. It includes all of the basic systems required to be an active participant in the game: power, communications,
control, BUMPERS, and movement. The implementation must obviously follow a design approach intended to play FIRST
STRONGHOLD (e.g. a box of unassembled parts placed on the FIELD or a ROBOT designed to play a different game would not
satisfy this definition)

So BUMPERS are now part of the definition of ROBOT. What does this mean? Consider R4:

In the STARTING CONFIGURATION (the physical configuration in which a ROBOT starts a MATCH), no part of the ROBOT shall extend outside the vertical projection of the FRAME PERIMETER, with the exception of minor protrusions such as bolt heads, fastener ends, rivets, etc.

So if BUMPERS are part of the ROBOT, but if no part of the ROBOT shall extend outside the FRAME PERIMETER, then BUMPERS cannot be outside the FRAME PERIMETER, right? However, numerous BUMPER rules and the definition of BUMPER require the BUMPER to be rigidly mounted to the FRAME PERIMETER, and are thus contained outside of it.

So because of these contradicting rules, I don't actually think it's possible to legally build a robot! It both must have bumpers outside of the frame perimeter, yet no part of the robot can extend past the frame perimeter in starting configuration. Again, clearly this isn't a real issue, and is just an amusing inconsistency, so I'm mainly bringing this up to see if other, similar, more worrisome inconsistencies were created with this change. And also to hopefully inspire a good chuckle during a stressful part of build season.

[FrankJ]

Your best bet is to argue that bumpers are minor protrusions?

[Rosiebotboss]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

I believe an unintended consequence of last Friday's Team Update is that it is now actually impossible to build a legal ROBOT that meets the definition of all of the rules. Obviously this isn't the intent of the GDC, and despite how the rules literally read it will never be enforced like this, but I thought it was kind of funny if nothing else.

Consider the change to the definition of ROBOT (change in bold):


So BUMPERS are now part of the definition of ROBOT. What does this mean? Consider R4:



So if BUMPERS are part of the ROBOT, but if no part of the ROBOT shall extend outside the FRAME PERIMETER, then BUMPERS cannot be outside the FRAME PERIMETER, right? However, numerous BUMPER rules and the definition of BUMPER require the BUMPER to be rigidly mounted to the FRAME PERIMETER, and are thus contained outside of it.

So because of these contradicting rules, I don't actually think it's possible to legally build a robot! It both must have bumpers outside of the frame perimeter, yet no part of the robot can extend past the frame perimeter in starting configuration. Again, clearly this isn't a real issue, and is just an amusing inconsistency, so I'm mainly bringing this up to see if other, similar, more worrisome inconsistencies were created with this change. And also to hopefully inspire a good chuckle during a stressful part of build season.

I'm going to go out on a limb here, as a LRI, I will not reject a team for having bumpers outside of the frame perimeter. I don't think it was the intention of the GDC to outlaw all robots.

(Did you go to law school in Philadelphia? )

[Libby K]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

So because of these contradicting rules, I don't actually think it's possible to legally build a robot!

Does this mean we can pack up & get some sleep?!

Our team noticed the same issue and giggled about it. Everyone is illegal! Man, inspection's going to take so long this year...

[Mike Bortfeldt]

How about attaching the bumpers to the inside surface of the frame perimeter?

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Libby K

Does this mean we can pack up & get some sleep?!

Our team noticed the same issue and giggled about it. Everyone is illegal! Man, inspection's going to take so long this year...

Yeah, in the interest of full disclosure, I didn't fully grasp this inconsistency until Drost spelled it out for me. I'm sure it will never be a real issue at competition, but it's worth pointing out.

Originally Posted by Rosiebotboss

I'm going to go out on a limb here, as a LRI, I will not reject a team for having bumpers outside of the frame perimeter. I don't think it was the intention of the GDC to outlaw all robots.

(Did you go to law school in Philadelphia? )

It definitely wasn't the GDC's intention, and I certainly hope that inspectors won't be rejecting every robot this year. Just thought it was funny.

Originally Posted by Mike Bortfeldt

How about attaching the bumpers to the inside surface of the frame perimeter?

The rules are pretty clear that any BUMPER-like structure that is mounted to the inside of the Frame Perimeter does not meet the definition of BUMPER and is just a regular robot part.

[Jon Stratis]

As an LRI... I love this! There's always at least one team at each event that goes out of their way to get on your bad side, and now we have big fat rule/definition to beat them with

All kidding aside, I doubt anyone will actually enforce it that way, and the GDC is sure to notice that and correct it, probably by changing the wording in the robot definition to indicate that a robot must have bumpers attached to it.

[rich2202]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

So if BUMPERS are part of the ROBOT, but if no part of the ROBOT shall extend outside the FRAME PERIMETER, then BUMPERS cannot be outside the FRAME PERIMETER, right? However, numerous BUMPER rules and the definition of BUMPER require the BUMPER to be rigidly mounted to the FRAME PERIMETER, and are thus contained outside of it.

The dilemma is not with STARTING CONFIGURATION, but with how BUMPERS are attached. STARTING CONFIGURATION is easily solved by including BUMPERS inside the FRAME PERIMETER.

Most of the rule (R26) says the BUMPERS must be attached to the "structure/frame". Using that interpretation, ROBOTS with BUMPERS must meet the 120 inch FRAME PERIMETER limitation. STARTING CONFIGURATION dilemma solved.

However, there is one part of R26 that is a problem, where it says that the "BUMPER must be backed by the FRAME PERIMETER". It is impossible for the BUMPER to be inside the FRAME PERIMETER (outside face of the BUMPER on the FRAME PERIMETER), and be backed by the FRAME PERIMETER (inside face of the BUMPER on the FRAME PERIMETER) at the same time.

[RoboChair]

There are some subtle changes you made to the actual wording in the update of the manual that WILDLY change the meaning of the text you quoted.

The exact wording is as follows.

The ROBOT must be an electromechanical assembly built by the FIRST Robotics Competition Team to perform specific tasks when competing in FIRST STRONGHOLD. The ROBOT must include all of the basic systems required to be an active participant in the game - power, communications, control, BUMPERS, and movement.

It is absolutely clear that your ROBOT is your Team's mechanical solution to this year's game. Your ROBOT must include all the systems listed to compete; power, comms, control, BUMPERS, and the ability to move. If you have not included all of the following on your ROBOT then it is not fit to compete.

Further if you read R2 and the Blue Box it has details that you exclude the BUMPERS from the definition of your FRAME PERIMETER.

[mastachyra]

Originally Posted by Rosiebotboss

(Did you go to law school in Philadelphia? )

Maybe he'd want to go toe-to-toe on bird law with you.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by RoboChair

There are some subtle changes you made to the actual wording in the update of the manual that WILDLY change the meaning of the text you quoted.

The exact wording is as follows.


It is absolutely clear that your ROBOT is your Team's mechanical solution to this year's game. Your ROBOT must include all the systems listed to compete; power, comms, control, BUMPERS, and the ability to move. If you have not included all of the following on your ROBOT then it is not fit to compete.

Further if you read R2 and the Blue Box it has details that you exclude the BUMPERS from the definition of your FRAME PERIMETER.

I am not sure how you're drawing the conclusion that I changed the words, I literally copied and pasted them verbatim from the manual.

THe issue isn't that your bumpers define your frame perimeter, the issue is that all parts of the robot have to be within the frame perimeter for starting config, and the bumpers are defined as part of the robot.

[EricLeifermann]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

I am not sure how you're drawing the conclusion that I changed the words, I literally copied and pasted them verbatim from the manual.

THe issue isn't that your bumpers define your frame perimeter, the issue is that all parts of the robot have to be within the frame perimeter for starting config, and the bumpers are defined as part of the robot.

It also means that you need to bag your bumpers unless you want them to count against your withholding allowance.

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by EricLeifermann

It also means that you need to bag your bumpers unless you want them to count against your withholding allowance.

Let's not get crazy here... R15 specifically excludes bumpers from the bagging requirement!

[GaryVoshol]

Makes the referees' job easy. Head ref just has to DQ every robot every match for not passing inspection, and the other refs just stand around.

[FrankJ]

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

Makes the referees' job easy. Head ref just has to DQ every robot every match for not passing inspection, and the other refs just stand around.

If they never pass inspection, they won't get DQed?