"Load Bearing Surface"

[Yan Wang]

Originally Posted by thoughtful

This is bizzare, i think they should change the triangles to rectangles or squares. Look at this picture from the manual, although its specifically mentioning to the human player requirements; it gives a big O.K to the loading process. Now look closely the robot is stradling the trianlge. This is a big blunder by FIRST, they should have never used this picture, our team might be able to add a load bearing surface but what about the other teams do. FIRST should be more considerate about this. Even till now its not crystal clear as to what the rules are regarding stradling. I know FIRST has done a great job creating a spectacular game, but i think they should make it better by changing or atleast not conflicting with their own diagrams.

I think this just hit the nail in the head with a sledgehammer. FIRST should definitely change the rule from "touching" to "vertically covering" the loading zone as it clearly depicts in its own images. That was a very keen observation, thoughtful.

[AmyPrib]

Well - I see the intent of "in the zone" to be safety, obvious-ness, and loading intent.

Has anyone suggested possibly making the 36" triangles a little bit larger on the field, so that it would help avoid the straddling concern, if they want to stick to "touching" the triangle? They made them a little larger for the HP side, why not make them a little larger for the field side? Is there any specific reason why 36" was chosen? Would it be a detrimental impact to the game and rules if they made it 40", or 42", or even 46"?

I have got to believe that they will eventually accept the "obvious straddling" position as "in the zone". But if you open it up to "just being in the 3d space above the triangle", then you could have your robot body anywhere within 6 feet away from the zone, with it's arm sticking out "in the 3d space". That's a safety concern, and it would be difficult to enforce a "no interference" rule with that because you don't have any fixed space for the robot to be in - your arm would just need to dangle over the triangle, and the refs couldn't really judge your intent of retrieving a tetra, or if you're just swinging the arm about.
And they want to try and enforce the "no interference", especially for safety. So there has to be SOME type of rule that states when you are in, and when you're not in, the zone. You have to have some "fixed" space that you can consider a no-interference zone.

My opinion, is that if they increased the size of that triangle zone a little bit, and they allow the obvious straddling position, then we might minimize some of the major concerns. Plus, making it bigger, you have less of a chance of actually straddling it. I'm guessing with the size of some robot arms, it will be difficult to get some portion of the robot "in the zone", in an obvious manner, before touching the tetra. Some robots will have their wheel touch the very tippy corner of the triangle, and the driver will be able to see that, but a ref or someone else not at the right angle won't. So they may get penalized "unjustly". If you allow a little more space (bigger triangle) to make it obvious, you increase the safety for everyone and help the refs out a little to make calls.
They're not going to make everyone happy, but I think with a few minor adjustments, it could alleviate a lot of the legitimate concerns/gripes people have.

[Natchez]

Originally Posted by AmyPrib

why not make them a little larger for the field side?

Because many teams met the design requirement and it simply is not fair to change the requirements after ship. If teams are having problems meeting the requirement thus getting penalized, they might want to consider using the human player side where FIRST changed the requirements a few hours before ship.

Originally Posted by AmyPrib

Would it be a detrimental impact to the game and rules if they made it 40", or 42", or even 46"?

Only a detriment to those who met the design requirement ... not for those who ignored the requirement knowing that FIRST could be "convinced" to change the rules which they already have on the human player side from "feedback".

Originally Posted by AmyPrib

and they allow the obvious straddling position,

FIRST does allow straddling if you have enough weight margin to put 40 wire ties on your robot.

In reality, the game would have been much more exciting and audience friendly if FIRST would have kept the "load bearing" rule instead of the "please put wire ties on the perimeter of your base" rule, simply because more people would be heading to the human player for tetras instead of the log-jam that will be created as FIRST makes being in the auto-loading zone easier. With that said, the human player will still be a key part of the game merely because of the congestion on the field.

If you can't meet the requirements, change 'em,
Lucien

[Andy Baker]

Originally Posted by Natchez

If you can't meet the requirements, change 'em,
Lucien

Lucien,

I agree with you on this issue, and it is frustrating to see FIRST change at this point of the season. We have been practicing with the right-sized (but thinner) load triangles, and our driver has been training to put a wheel on the triangle while picking up the tetra. Will it be easier for us to grab a tetra if we straddle the load zone triangle? Sure. Will this be difficult for referees to see? Yes. Does changing the rule make it easier for all teams to pick up tetras? Yes. However, this greatly penalizes the teams who have been busting their butts, abiding by this rule. Because of this, I disagree with the recent change and I agree with you.

Andy B.

[AmyPrib]

Originally Posted by Natchez

Because many teams met the design requirement and it simply is not fair to change the requirements after ship.

Only a detriment to those who met the design requirement ... not for those who ignored the requirement knowing that FIRST could be "convinced" to change the rules which they already have on the human player side from "feedback".

Ok. I agree. I don't think teams simply "ignored" the requirements, and I would hope people didn't think they could "convince" FIRST to change their minds about things.. Maybe some did, who knows. I think a lot of people were legitimately confused as to the intent of the rule and the interpretation of the rule. Yes - the questions and clarifications should have been asked earlier. Yes - we should have gotten clear and unchanging answers earlier. I agree - it wouldn't be fair to those who understood the rule and designed to it.

One thing I will be interested to see, is how many penalties (if many) get thrown for robots that were actually touching the zone, just barely, but the refs don't see it and therefore penalize them. There may be some butting heads of the "being obvious" and "touching the zone". Hopefully teams can do both to make it easy-to-see for themselves and the refs. I'm thinking to avoid interference 30pt penalties, if an opponent robot is anywhere near the loading zone, stay away, because you may not be able to tell if they're "just barely in" the zone.
We shall see how it all plays out during matches and hopefully it proves not to be a huge issue afterall.

[Paul Copioli]

Wait a minute!! The load bearing "Rule" was never a rule. It wasn't even in the Q&A forum until February 16th (see below).


This one (978) was asked and answered quite early (1/11/05) and the "blatantly obvious" quote made it clear to me that a robot whose drive base was completely covering the triangle, but not necessarily having wheels touching would be considered O.K.

Q: Regarding <G17>: What are the parameters for being "in" a loading zone? (i.e., must some part of the robot be touching the yellow triangle, et cetera)

A: There are no yellow triangles in the loading zones. The robot base and / or drive train must be touching the loading zone. The intent of this rule is that you must be in the loading zone. By making it blatantly obvious that you are in the loading zone, you will draw far less attention from the referees.

Q&A #1617 (load bearing surface) wasn't answered until February 16th! Our drive base was already designed and driving around by then, but I guess we just ignored the perfectly clear rule.

Q: As related to answer 978, Is a robot base considered "in" the loading zone if it isn't touching the hdpe 36" equilateral triangle? If so, What is considered part of the robot base?

A: No. The robot base is considered to be any load-bearing surface within the maximum 28" x 38" robot base size.

Andy & Lucien,

How can you say this rule was clear? Having the robot base over the loading triangle isn't blatantly obvious? C'mon. You guys are being a bit harsh, aren't you? I don't like rule changes either, especially this one. I argue that without this rule change the referees would have interpreted "blatantly obvious" as a robot base (say, the kit bot) clearly over the loading triangle. I also think the "tie wrap hanging from the base" is a ludicrous proposal, but given the RECENT interpretation that is what my team will do.

Also, look at the picture next to rule S07. It is clear that the original intent of this rule was a drive base had to be over the zone. Notice that the wheels are not touching. Also, here is the rule as written in the FIRST manual:

<G12> The purpose of the LOADING ZONE is to allow ROBOTS to quickly and safely receive TETRAS
without interference while HUMAN PLAYERS and/or field attendants are in close proximity, and then return
to play. The LOADING ZONE is not intended to serve as a “perpetual safety zone” to prevent interaction
with opponent ROBOTS for the entire match. Tethers, tape measures, long extension arms, and other devices
intended to contact the LOADING ZONE to maintain the “non-interference constraint” defined in <G15>
while the ROBOT drives around the remainder of the field are against the spirit of the rule and will not be
permitted. Such devices must be removed before the ROBOT will be permitted to play in the match.

-Paul

[Andy Baker]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

Wait a minute!! (yada yada)

Andy & Lucien,

How can you say this rule was clear? Having the robot base over the loading triangle isn't blatantly obvious? C'mon.

A couple of thoughts here:

1. The way we have been practicing is by touching the triangle with our wheel. Since this is how we have been practicing, then of course it is the way we would like to see it remain. This is for purely selfish reasons.

2. The rule is not clear, obviously, since many of us viewed this differently.

3. It is fun to see Copioil get all riled up about this. I can imagine the crazy Italian's face getting redder by the minute. (I am actually on the phone with him as this post is going out, and I can HEAR his blood pressure rise... fun stuff!)

4. For the big picture of FIRST, I think that it the rule should be "hovering over the zone" or "breaking the plane of the zone" in order to make things better for competitors and referees. However, this was not clear in the beginning at kickoff. Therefore the quandry exists. Do they modify this rule, or do they stick to their guns? For me and my team, we will go either way. We can straddle or we can put one wheel in the zone.

Andy B.

[thoughtful]

Originally Posted by Yan Wang

I think this just hit the nail in the head with a sledgehammer. FIRST should definitely change the rule from "touching" to "vertically covering" the loading zone as it clearly depicts in its own images. That was a very keen observation, thoughtful.

I have posted on Question and Answers and waiting for clarification.

I just think that the answer to ID 978 confused everyone.

ID: 978 Section: 4.3.3 Status: Answered Date Answered: 1/11/2005
Q: Regarding <G17>: What are the parameters for being "in" a loading zone? (i.e., must some part of the robot be touching the yellow triangle, et cetera)

A: There are no yellow triangles in the loading zones. The robot base and / or drive train must be touching the loading zone. The intent of this rule is that you must be in the loading zone. By making it blatantly obvious that you are in the loading zone, you will draw far less attention from the referees.

If there are no triangles marking the laoding zone how do we touch it

[Greg Marra]

Originally Posted by thoughtful

If there are no triangles marking the laoding zone how do we touch it

The triangles marking the loading zones are the color of the alliance, not yellow.

[thoughtful]

Originally Posted by Greg Marra

The triangles marking the loading zones are the color of the alliance, not yellow.

I know , but the question confuses the reader. It does not explicitly suggest that the triangles are allaince colours. It seems as it it suggesting there are no triangles. Or probably its just me

However, my intent is not to pick on the people at First, I know its a hefty job trying to keep up with all our questions and they are doing a mighty fine job so far . And we should support them in everyway possible.


Back to the topic, i think First will try their best to sort this out, or allow an alternative for the teams who were confused.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

This one (978) was asked and answered quite early (1/11/05) and the "blatantly obvious" quote made it clear to me that a robot whose drive base was completely covering the triangle, but not necessarily having wheels touching would be considered O.K.

Let's take one more look at 978:

Q: Regarding <G17>: What are the parameters for being "in" a loading zone? (i.e., must some part of the robot be touching the yellow triangle, et cetera)

A: There are no yellow triangles in the loading zones. The robot base and / or drive train must be touching the loading zone. The intent of this rule is that you must be in the loading zone. By making it blatantly obvious that you are in the loading zone, you will draw far less attention from the referees.

When I see the phrase "must be touching", I don't think that "completely covering the triangle, but not necessarily having wheels touching" is a reasonable inference. As Billfred mentioned, remember Dean's discussion last year of the definition of "straddling". Touching means touching, not straddling, because we're engineers, not lawyers. Unless I'm way off-base, I don't think that FIRST has really changed the rule all that much; 1617 just reinforces that you must be touching the triangle, consistent with 978, and clarifies what constitutes the "base", consistent with the stipulations of G12.

Am I missing something here?

[Natchez]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

Andy & Lucien,

How can you say this rule was clear? Having the robot base over the loading triangle isn't blatantly obvious? C'mon. You guys are being a bit harsh, aren't you?

Paul, I'm sorry if I implied that the "in the loading zone" rule was clear; it is about as clear as the Mississippi River around New Orleans. As you pointed out, many teams, including us, were surprised at the February 16th clarification about "load bearing" ... almost jaw dropping ... certainly design altering. Without saying that you are "exactly right" in your rule interpretation and how you design and train your drivers, you are 99.9999% right

On this topic, I really don't have a problem with FIRST admitting that the February 16 clarification was "off base", I just don't want to see the Band-Aid be to increase the size of the loading zone as they did with the human player side. Base straddling should have been accepted, as you pointed out, and I think FIRST tried to correct a wrong with their "wire tie" clarification without admitting that "load bearing" was wrong. But, I can certainly see where FIRST is gun-shy because as soon as you allow "over", there will a handful of teams that say their arm is "over" the triangle and therefore they are "in the zone" ... and, sadly, they would have gotten away with it.

In a broader sense, rules clarifying is a "process" problem that I would like FIRST to address. The Q&A system was a great advancement but I think they need a process where the rules interpreters have their finger on the pulse of the teams. With that said, I recognize that rules clarifying is a VERY, VERY, VERY difficult thing to do and I don't envy those who do it at FIRST. Think about it, other sports, such as golf, have volumes clarifying rules that don't change from year to year; FIRST must clarify a set of new rules every year ... at least for the game. Although very difficult, FIRST must recognize that participants are paying $6,000 and demand a high quality product.

Have a nice day,
Lucien

[Andy Baker]

I was talking to a wise man (similar to a wise guy) last night, and I heard two points about this that have previously not been discussed:

1. If the rule is "hovering over the triangle", then the drive team (and coach) has a better view than the referee does. This does not bode well for a referee when a "discussion" takes place after the match. I can hear the coach saying "I had a better view of it than YOU did, and we were IN!!" This is not a good situation. A referee must do his/her job and be respected.

2. Having the robot touch the triangle is similar to making a base-runner in baseball touch the base. The base runner is not safe at home until he touches home plate - not hovers above it.

From a referee's point of view, I am re-thinking my previous post about making things better for the referee if the rule was hovering. I tell ya, I would not want to be a referee in a position where the coach has a better view of a situation than I do. That situation stinks.

I like the baseball analogy: touch the base. This makes it simple and clear.

Andy B.

[Paul Copioli]

... but you can see the runners feet. On many robot designs, the feet (or wheels, treads, etc) can't be seen by anybody until the robot is on its back.

I challenge the point that covering can be seen better by the drive team. How does one come to that conclusion? I can see the robot BASE covering from 20 to 30 feet away. A ref will be right there.

During drive practice last night, we parcticed touching with our wheels. While the drive team had no problem touching, I had a heck of a time seeing if they touched. It was much, much, much, much (you get the point) easier to see if the drive base was over.

I wonder if the "wise guy" was from the West coast ...

[Erin Rapacki]

Have any of you read Update #13 yet? I think most of these issues are addressed (working off memory here, the current computer I'm on won't open .pdf files).

I was one of the referees with Benge at the UTC scrimmage last weekend and we did notice a lot of inconsistency in regards to how to call penalties, what should be called, what shouldn't, what needs to be changed, and what needs to be more clear in the head referee handbooks. After the scrimmage the seven of us sat down together to reach a consensus about what had happened that day and how it could/should be changed. From what's written in update #13 and my personal experience; I believe that there will be fewer penalties called during the Regional Events and that this specific situation should be less of a concern.

The concept behind the increasing the size of the Human Player loading zone was a matter of safety (from what I recognized). I was one of the referees to bring up the concern that if we must enforce a "two feet in HP Loading Zone" concept, with the previous configuration, we would be forcing the human players to be closer in proximity to their robot than they need to be. Many robots were coming in at angles or had appendages extending well beyond the HP Loading Zone. In order for a HP to put a heavy tetra on such an appendage, they would have been required to contort their body in such a way that may have resulted in the person loosing balance, falling, or getting entangled with their robot. I'm glad they made the HP Zone larger.


erin