"Load Bearing Surface"

[Kit Gerhart]

Originally Posted by Natchez

Let's try to stop this train wreck ... what are your ideas at a solution,
Lucien

My thought would be change the rule to say that some part of the 28x38 base must extend over the triangle to be "in" the loading zone, but the robot need not touch the triangle. The referees would have to make calls, but a team would know that if they are straddling the triangle with its point a foot under the robot, they will not get a penalty. If, on the other hand, you drive up with only 2mm of triangle under the robot, you do so at a high risk of receiving a penalty.

[Bharat Nain]

Originally Posted by Natchez

Let's try to stop this train wreck ... what are your ideas at a solution,
Lucien

How about they make it a box, and a little bigger than the triangle. Atleast that way our wheels can touch the square. Of course this does not suit the theme of tetras, but to me at least it makes more sense. Although the dangling zip ties from robots might look good(or sloppy), I don't really like the idea.

[Jeff Rodriguez]

Originally Posted by Natchez

]]Let's try to stop this train wreck ... what are your ideas at a solution,
Lucien

It's not a train wreck. FIRST has said that you need to be touching the loading zone.
They only need to clarify what needs to be touching.
I suggest a new rule:

<G30>
For a robot to be considered "in" a loading zone a wheel, tread, slider, non-retractable stabilizer or robot frame has to touch the corresponding HDPE triangle.

[Chris Hibner]

Originally Posted by Ogre

It's not a train wreck. FIRST has said that you need to be touching the loading zone.
They only need to clarify what needs to be touching.
I suggest a new rule:

<G30>
For a robot to be considered "in" a loading zone a wheel, tread, slider, non-retractable stabilizer or robot frame has to touch the corresponding HDPE triangle.

That's a great idea. I think that is solution that shouldn't kill anyone's design, while still within the spirit of the rule (i.e. it doesn't allow a team to drop an anchor and drive around slapping penalties on the opposition).

[Maestro PK]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

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.

....and there it is. I can't see how FIRST can ultimately come to any conclusion other than what Paul has suggested. Given the fact that many bots have heavily obscurred wheels, telling refs that they must determine each time a tetra is picked up whether or not a part of the bot is actually touching the triangle is just ridiculous. Even Dan Swando, who has the super-human ability to slow down time and zoom in with his telescoping eyes, has admitted that this would be a tough judgement for any ref to make. The drive base should have to clearly cover the triangle, not neccessarily touch it. As far as some concerns I've heard regarding bots that fold out and cover a larger space, I think a fair ruling would be to say that what constitutes the "drive base" can only be as large as the original 28 x 38 in. starting size. Any part of the bot that subsequently folds out or expands would not count and would not be able to "cover" the loading zone.

Gotta show a little support for the Copiolster ;-)

[meaubry]

Once the rule is written and distributed, it doesn't mean that they should still not consider the now exposed concerns and issues related to them. Every year most major sports re-evaluate the rules and change some.

We don't have nor should have to wait a year for this rule to be changed - if, the rule change is done to improve some aspect of the game experience.

In my opinion, the penalties this year are excessive and will have a major impact in the outcome of many of the matches. Does that add any value to the FIRST experience, I think not. So, why not change some that will undoubtedly be a burden on the referees (whom will be busy enough trying to sort out the interference penalties).

Defining the Loading Zone, by the HDPE triangle was debated from almost the kickoff, with FIRST responses clearly and consistently defining the zone as contacting the surface of the triangle. A question was asked and responded to early about danglers and appendages extended from the robot. Answer - NO, not good enough. Clearly, this was to discourage long arm designed robots planting themselves midfield.

Okay, so what now? Danglers from 28" x 38" base clearly visible by a ref? Sorry, but this is still somewhat silly. When teams design robots, many have protective coverings that do not allow anyone to visibly see the 28" x 38" base. And, why continue relying on the subjective decision of someone that can't really be watching 2 things at the same time. Tetra up on a stand, and robot base on the ground.

Wouldn't it be simpler for everyone concerned to simply define the loading zone as a 3 dimensional area defined by the edges of the hdpe triangle and extending 6 inches up. In order to be "in the loading zone", a robot primary drive system or base must extend into or over that defined area.

And, for the auto loader zone I'd instruct the refs to be less judgemental than in the Human player loading zone. I am 100% in support of protecting the students in the human loading zone, but on the other-side? what is the point? Isn't there going to be enough for the ref's to have to try and sort out, why overburden them with one more non-essential decision?

Anyways, thats my take on this.

[Covey41]

I am having a hard time feeling sorry for most of you, from the beginning the word "touching" was in the rules. As Dean Said we are engineers and not lawyers. We are upset that we just superficially glanced at the rules, and not making sure that we were understanding what we read. We like everyone Else assumed that just being over the loading zone was good enough, we were wrong!

Am I going to complain? No.

"I" did not completely read the rule. "I" did not take the time to completely understand what I was reading. Am "I" going to whine at FIRST, No!

Who do "I" blame, ME!

Folks this is the rule, LIVE WITH IT!

FIRST gave us away to live with it, they very well could have said "tough"!

Now FIRST is not about building a robot, it is about inspiring students into technology fields. It is about dealing with real world scenarios. Let's not teach our students that it is OK to whine till someone changes thing to the way we want them.

Erin,

Our team was at UTC. I counted 7 Ref's, 1 more than FIRST asks for at regionals. How can you say you were understaffed. You could say that they needed more Ref's, but maybe you should have a better idea of what is going on before you give an opinion.

For what is worth that is my 2 cents. (I know it's not worth that much.)

[Natchez]

Originally Posted by Ogre

It's not a train wreck. FIRST has said that you need to be touching the loading zone.
They only need to clarify what needs to be touching.
I suggest a new rule:

<G30>
For a robot to be considered "in" a loading zone a wheel, tread, slider, non-retractable stabilizer or robot frame has to touch the corresponding HDPE triangle.

Ogre, I'm sorry if I did not clarify what I meant by train wreck. I'm not saying the rule is going to be the train wreck; the train wreck, in my opinion, will be all of the jawing between the coaches and refs over incorrect calls and missed calls as Andy and others have pointed out. If the rule stands how it is now where a wheel or a wire tie might or might not be seen by the ref, I would like a penny for every time I'll hear, "We would have won but the ref threw a flag on us when we were in the loading zone."

If there is not a way for the refs to get the calls "right" at least 95% of the time, I think that the rule (whatever it ends up being) should be considered a failure. And if you think 95% is a high standard, this percentage means that there will be at least one missed call during each match resulting in a 10 point "swing" and in a game that will not see many matches over 50 points per alliance, a 10 point swing is huge and will probably swing many matches ... not excluding the World Championship matches. After thinking about it, maybe FIRST should be shooting for rules that ensure more like a 98% or 99% ref call accuracy rate; and for those that have a low accuracy rate, maybe the penalty should be less than 5% of the expected average score. These are the type of standards and litmus tests that I wish FIRST would adopt.

Lucien

[thoughtful]

WOW, this topic is becoming very hot. We have two sides as always to this aspect; however, i think that the rule from the start was a bit confusing. On top of that there was the confusing diagram. I think FIRST will come up with a simple solution for this. We have to keep in mind that FIRST might not be able to change the field layout as the field parts must have already been constructed and even shipped to some fo the regionals. I myself, like many other people, who are much more experienced than myself, beleive that the rule should be changed to allow a robot base to break the 3D plane over the triangle to be considered in the loading zone. As Paul Copioli mentioned its much easier to see if the robot is in the loading zone, in contrast to making a call based on a wheel touching.

My two cents..

[AJunx]

I just reread through the original rules (<G12> through <G15>) to try to get a feel for exactly what everyone was thinking when we set out to design and build our robots. Here are two major problems (potential train wrecks) I see with the current interpretation of the loading zone rule:

1) Now that in order to be "in" the loading zone, you must have something within your 28" by 38" base touching the triangle, it is now possible to enter and exit the loading zone without moving the base of your robot. How? Well suppose you stuck the front half of your base over the triangle so that none of your wheels were touching. By the rules, your robot is NOT in the loading zone.
Next, you use a tiny pneumatic cylinder in the front center of your robot to put down a small neon green (or pink) foot to touch the loading zone triangle. Now your robot is IN the loading zone. Awfully convenient, wouldn't you say? To exit the loading zone, all you have to do is lift the foot using your pneumatic. Total lateral movement by the robot: zero.

Does it strike anyone else as odd that you can enter the loading zone AND exit the loading zone without ever moving your robot?

2) Nothing in <G12> through <G15> in any way suggests that a robot that falls on its side to make its base 38" by 60" should not be able to use its "new" base to touch or cover the loading zone triangle.

Geez, I need to stop typing so much.

Anyway, here is the point:

Enforce the rule the way it was written and the way it was meant to be enforced: If a robot is, in the opinion of whatever referee is watching, CLEARLY IN (that is, covering) the loading station, let it get a tetra. Also, the robot must be CLEARLY OUT of (not covering) the loading station before it re-enters.

Hope this was somewhat useful,
-Andrew

[russell]

If I were FIRST I would just put a pressure sensor under the triangle, and a sensor (be it optical, pressure, totally insane magic, whatever) to determine when a tetra is removed. If the sensor under the triangle does not detect pressure when the tetra is removed there is a penalty. Otherwise as this guy I know would say "its cool". I realise that this would cause some trouble with their little thing about being within the dimensions, and their other little thing with dangling string onto the triangle, but the point is that it would work, and it would be accurate. And it would comply with the original rules as far as I can tell.

[Jeff Rodriguez]

ID: 1757 Section: 4.3.3 Status: Answered Date Answered: 2/25/2005
Q: In regards to ID1617, i would like to refer to Section 4.3.2, the picture on the right of <S06>. The diagram illustrates an O.K way of loading the tetra; it is clear that the robot is straddling the triangle. Please change ruling or clarify.
A: The pictures are for illustrative purposes only and may not be completely detailed. The purpose of this picture is to demonstrate the human player loading only. Also see #978... the rule has been "touching" since 1/11/2005. Using the baseball analogy,... Imagine in baseball if the runner just had to be over the base to be safe?

There you go. 'Touching' has been there since 1/11 and the baseball analogy. I believe both of those were mentioned in this thread.

[Pat Major]

Why do loading stations exist? To protect the human players and the referees.

Are the referees better protected if they are trying to look under the 28 X 38 perimeter of a robot to see if a wheel that may be barely visible is on the loading station triangle? What might the robots arm be doing while the ref is crouching down to look? If a robot has a cover that the referee can not see through and the cover is an inch or two off the playing field, and the robots wheels are set in a couple of inches from the edge of the robot, how could the ref know if the robot was on. There may be no way to tell if a robot is in, if the robots cover is a quarter of an inch off the ground. Andy and Paul might have to teach the referees how to do the “belly checks” that were so well done at the IRI competition. For the safety of the refs I think that the rule should be amended to read “the loading zone is a 3 dimensional area defined by the edges of the hdpe triangle” I think breaking the plan is much safer and also much easier to judge. If the rule is not changed it will just be zip tie city, and a lot of robots with skirts.

As for baseball players they do not have a 28 X 38 protective cover over their feet to obstruct the view of the base from umpire.

Speaking of baseball how about this curve ball, why not have the referees signal by raising an arm that a robot is in the loading station and it is safe for the team to remove a tetra. That way the team can keep trying to position themselves in the zone until the referee signals. No arguments over whether you were in or not, no red flags, you may not touch the tetra until his hand is raised. Assumes that we have a referee at each of the four referee loading stations

[Jeff Rodriguez]

Originally Posted by Pat Major

Why do loading stations exist? To protect the human players and the referees.

They exist to promote creativity and exciting matches. If they were not there, a robot could easily block their opponents loading zones and effectively shutting them out.
The loading zones promote offense robots and encourage teams to design arms/lifts and tetra grabbers rather than a large, expandable wall.

[Natchez]

Originally Posted by Pat Major

why not have the referees signal by raising an arm that a robot is in the loading station and it is safe for the team to remove a tetra.

Pat, this is a GREAT IDEA

Originally Posted by me

why don't we have a ref stationed at each loading zone (8 per field) and indicate when "they believe" that a robot is in the loading zone by raising a hand or a green flag.

Now we have two of us on board. A couple more thousand people and maybe we can make this happen.

I'll buy you lunch if we see a bunch of refs hands going up at Championships,
Lucien