Team Update #18

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by Kevin Kolodziej

I don't like that the ruling has been changed now, after the strategy was actually used, when the very question was asked in the Q/A forum back in January and it was given the go-ahead.

You mean this Q&A response?

Originally Posted by Q&A

01-11-2007, 05:21 PM FRC1618

Starting Conditions

Section 7.3.3.1 dictates the starting conditions of the robot, but one question remains: Can a robot start on top of another robot, provided that both fit within their respective size restrictions?

01-14-2007, 10:37 AM GDC

Re: Starting Conditions

There is no rule that would prohibit this.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by Kevin Kolodziej

I don't like that the ruling has been changed now, after the strategy was actually used, when the very question was asked in the Q/A forum back in January and it was given the go-ahead.

I'm fine with not allowing it...but don't allow it from the start next time!

I revise my earlier opinion. A complete reversal when the question was asked a week after kickoff and given the go ahead and a team was obviously thinking about it is just plain wrong. The Zone Zeal tape measure decision was bad enough with allowing previously illegal mechanisms after build season. But outlawing a strategy after build? That you'd already been asked about? I think the GDC made a pretty large slip-up here.

[Rob]

Would it work to have a ringer between the two stacked robots? The rule says you can't touch other robots but the ringer would be between. It would be fun to see the head ref try to remove the ringer at the end of autonomous.

RAZ

[Joel J]

Originally Posted by Rob

Would it work to have a ringer between the two stacked robots? The rule says you can't touch other robots but the ringer would be between. It would be fun to see the head ref try to remove the ringer at the end of autonomous.

RAZ

ahahahaha.

[GBIT]

Something makes me think they might have a small problem with that! Just Maybe.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

I find it unfortunate that they made this rule, as now robots that have drivetrain problems cannot help their alliance. With out this rule, even a dead 'bot could have been useful to their alliance. Now they won't even bother to bring a dead 'bot to the field

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by Rob

Would it work to have a ringer between the two stacked robots? The rule says you can't touch other robots but the ringer would be between. It would be fun to see the head ref try to remove the ringer at the end of autonomous.

RAZ

If we have the change, I WILL try this. Hopefully to win, but if not atleast in protest of the constant rule changes.

After the made up rules that could've cost us a match, and these random team updates, I'm bringing the rules out on the field with me.

[meatmanek]

Huh.

meatmanek@yggdrasil /tmp $ xpdf 2007\ Team\ Update\ 18.pdf 
Error: Document has not the mandatory ending %EOF

It's been a long time since I've gotten a corrupt file through HTTP. Re-downloading worked fine.

[Cody Carey]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

If we have the change, I WILL try this. Hopefully to win, but if not atleast in protest of the constant rule changes.

After the made up rules that could've cost us a match, and these random team updates, I'm bringing the rules out on the field with me.

That wouldn't be a very smart Idea. A robot that is supported by a ringer at the end of the match is worth no points.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by Cody Carey

That wouldn't be a very smart Idea. A robot that is supported by a ringer at the end of the match is worth no points.

Well, at about half the regionals the refs are removing keepers regardless of position. So, they either remove the keeper and you get the 30 points, or they leave it there and you are no worse off than before (you would only use this strategy with 2 nonfunctional robots).

[JBotAlan]

Originally Posted by Cody Carey

That wouldn't be a very smart Idea. A robot that is supported by a ringer at the end of the match is worth no points.

That's why you start off with the *keeper* between the two, get it in a "precarious" position, and the ref will remove it for you! Now, get back to the home zone in the next 2 minutes--take your time--and you're golden!

But seriously, I think that this stacking idea was great, and quite dangerous, and I'm jealous that I didn't think of it, but I totally understand why FIRST issued this update, and I am not frustrated at all with this call. It should not be blown up into a big deal like the past few updates have been.

Changing the rules is okay when it is a safety issue, as it appears to be in this situation. Is "okay" even a word? Firefox keeps saying it's not... Think about this: FIRST leaves a loophole in the rules saying that teams may use a, for instance, radio jamming device. They are not aware of the hole. Now, a team exploits that. FIRST becomes aware that *on one occasion, a loophole was used to create a safety hazard*. Sound familiar? FIRST has every right to make safety-related rule changes, IMHO. It makes no difference if it was an innovative idea or not. If it's unsafe, FIRST should, and will, shut it down.

Please, please, please, don't turn this into another FIRST-bashing thread.

JBot

[Lil' Lavery]

This strategy was used ONCE in more than 1500 matches played so far this year. Once. It obviously is not a integral part of the game, and in 99% of the matches is really an illogical thing to do (why play 1 vs. 3?). Instead of stacking two dead bots on each other for 30 points, why not help them getting running so they can grant a bigger reward for your alliance?
And the e-stop button only makes it partially more safe, by preventing those 2 teams from causing the "Stack" to tip. There are still 4 other robots and 6 human players introducing energy to the field that could potentially cause a robot to fall from the other one or the whole "stack" to fall over, even if not intended.

[Steve Kaneb]

I agree with Cory that there are enough things going on that changing rules in the middle of the season doesn't help your position.

Legitimately, it can be considered a safety issue, but I'm pretty sure Wildstang and their partners figured out "oh, maybe we should turn off the autonomous and disable the robots as soon as possible."

The fact is that a team update was pretty much entirely about outlawing something that happened once and likely won't happen again, despite the fact that there are quite a few rules that need clarifying. Wouldn't it have been time better spent doing something about the issue of ringers around flags?

[MikeDubreuil]

Can someone provide a video or a lengthy description of what happened during the Wildstang match?

My personal feeling is that this is quite an unbelievable rule change. On one hand I think it is insane that the legality of the strategy could be deemed legal on January 14th and then made illegal 2.5 months later. On the other hand I can understand why the rule changed. A veteran team could pressure a rookie team to just sit on a ramp for the entire match because, "you can't score points anyway."

As Lil'Lavery said, if 1 out of 1500 matches happened this way was it really necessary to make the change? From what I understand it would have basically been 3 on 1 without this strategy resulting in a predicted defeat for Wildstang.

[Eldarion]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

And the e-stop button only makes it partially more safe, by preventing those 2 teams from causing the "Stack" to tip. There are still 4 other robots and 6 human players introducing energy to the field that could potentially cause a robot to fall from the other one or the whole "stack" to fall over, even if not intended.

I must ask, how is this different from a robot deciding to go up another's ramps before the match is over (if an arm broke or someone's ramps deployed early, etc.)?