Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?

[SU 39]

This thread is not meant in any way to take away from the creativity of team 190. I personally think it is in theory, one of the coolest ideas I've seen this year. However, I just thought I'd bring this Q&A answer up to share.
http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=9187
Does this mean that Team 190's hurdling mechanism is illegal?

[DarkFlame145]

can we see a pic of what you are talking about?

[SU 39]

I have no pictures of it in action, but perhaps this would be helpful?
http://www.thebluealliance.net/tbatv/team.php?team=190

Edit: Qualifcation match 45, approximately 55 seconds, but it should continue all the way around and released on the other side of the red overpass for a hurdle.

[EricH]

Now that the GDC has responded, 190's entire strategy has been declared illegal. At least one other team has the same problem, if the Q&As are anything to go by.

The response indicated is a reversal of this Q&A. I just hope 190 is done competing for the year. Unfortunately, I don't think they are.

[Guy Davidson]

Originally Posted by EricH

The response indicated is a reversal of this Q&A

I guess it is. The GDC say it would be legal, and do not mention G22 in their response. Maybe because the arm always moves in the counter-clockwise direction (breaking the plan from the opponent's home stretch into the quadrant in between). However, it still does break the plan into the previous quadrant, without ever leaving their home stretch. I really don't know how to interpret this.

[DonRotolo]

It seems to me that having part of the robot in Quadrant 4 before ever leaving Quadrant 1 is a technical violation of <R22>, exactly the same as if you drove from Q1 partly into Q4 during the match.

[Stillen]

In my most humble opinion, it just looks like that 190 did some very good research and found a legal way, call it a loop hole if you must, to play AND conquer this game..... Kudos from me...... I'm sure there is questioning out there, but why would a veteran team try and find a shortcut. They've already proven in the past several years they are very capable team..... I see no need for them to be questioned........ By the way how's the ankle Ken?

Mike

[The Lucas]

Originally Posted by Stillen

In my most humble opinion, it just looks like that 190 did some very good research and found a legal way, call it a loop hole if you must,

I don't think it was just good research, more importantly it was them and 2158 asking the right questions. That is exactly what the Q&A is there for: asking questions that come up during your brainstorming and getting answers from the GDC. Unfortunately, even with the Q&A, if you gamble on the very creative borderline strategies, you run the risk of them being illegal as a side effect of another rule interpretation.

Originally the rules were written in a way that 190 and many other hurdlings mechanisms would not complete valid hurdles (by most interpretations) since they were contacting the ball while crossing the finish line. Then I think there was a short time period where the interpretation was a bot could contact the ball while it was crossing, but not crossed the line. Now, a bot can continue to contact the ball while it has crossed the finish line as long as the bot hasn't crossed the finish line. Personally I like the hurdling interpretation where as you can contact the ball while it is crossing, but not crossed the finish line. I mean we are "hurdling" not "stepping over"

[dtengineering]

Well, looking at the robot on the video, it pretty clearly violates G22. Considering the discussion around G22 here on CD and in the Q&A forums, I am surprised this was not apparent to the team when they designed their robot. This is quite a different case than the "two robots" or "one robot" issue, where the team complied with all the rules and Q&A as they were written, but then were arbitrarily declared in non-compliance at the competition. It is ironic that in this case the team was given an award for their design, but 1519 was not.

However I believe there may be a way for this design to comply with G22. G22 states that the robot must break the plane in a clockwise direction. Would it be possible to build an extra appendage on to the end of the arm, such that the appendage rotates (assuming the home stretch is q1) from q2 into q3, and then back into the home stretch in a clockwise direction. I can't really show that here easily, but I'm sure someone with sufficient motivation could figure out what I am talking about.

OR the team could, on their first pass around, take a penalty, but drop a small part of the robot, attached by a cord, into each quadrant. At this point the robot would be in all four quadrants at the same time, and should no longer be subject to penalties.

I know, I know... this probably falls into the "lawyering" the rules concept.. at least the second suggestion does... the first one strikes me as being in keeping with both the wording and intent of the rules, but I do have some sympathy for the team, who probably never thought they were violating G22 when they designed this.... even though I think it is pretty clear that with their present set up, they do.

Jason

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by dtengineering

Would it be possible to build an extra appendage on to the end of the arm, such that the appendage rotates (assuming the home stretch is q1) from q2 into q3, and then back into the home stretch in a clockwise direction.

I think it would be virtually impossible to design something that would allow the ball to fully cross the opponent's finish line (thus making it eligible to be hurdled again) and then reclaim the ball without having any part of the robot enter Q4... unless you flung it from Q3 to Q4, and put a wicked amount of backspin on it so it could roll back into Q3.

Originally Posted by dtengineering

OR the team could, on their first pass around, take a penalty

Intentionally committing penalties may cause you to receive a yellow card.

[dtengineering]

Originally Posted by jgannon

Intentionally committing penalties may cause you to receive a yellow card.

Yeah... good point on that. The work around of intentionally taking a penalty isn't really in keeping with the spirit of the rules, either, but was just something I'm throwing out there for brainstorming. Just like when a team shows up on Thursday weighing 150 pounds we all share our spare parts and tools with them to help them get back inside the weight limit, it sounds like here they need some ideas that can help them get back in compliance with G22.

What I had in mind for the first suggestion was something like the rather quick sketch I have attached here. Again, it might not be really in keeping with the spirit of the rules, given that there is a rule that pretty clearly states that robots are to proceed about the track in a counter-clockwise direction... and in this case the robot will not be "proceeding" but throwing some ideas out there is about all I can do to try and help 190 right now.

Jason

Edit: note comment below regarding diagram.

[Eugene Fang]

Originally Posted by dtengineering

Yeah... good point on that. The work around of intentionally taking a penalty isn't really in keeping with the spirit of the rules, either, but was just something I'm throwing out there for brainstorming. Just like when a team shows up on Thursday weighing 150 pounds we all share our spare parts and tools with them to help them get back inside the weight limit, it sounds like here they need some ideas that can help them get back in compliance with G22.

What I had in mind for the first suggestion was something like the rather quick sketch I have attached here. Again, it might not be really in keeping with the spirit of the rules, given that there is a rule that pretty clearly states that robots are to proceed about the track in a counter-clockwise direction... and in this case the robot will not be "proceeding" but throwing some ideas out there is about all I can do to try and help 190 right now.

Jason

i think that picture should say 'counter-clockwise'

[gblake]

Originally Posted by dtengineering

Yeah... good point on that. The work around of intentionally taking a penalty isn't really in keeping with the spirit of the rules, either, but was just something I'm throwing out there for brainstorming. Jason

Do they really have to take a penalty? If before the leave the very first quadrant (the one they start in) they place a small four-legged object atop the lane divider (one leg in each quadrant); and then operate with the bulk of their robot remaining in that original quadrant for the rest of the game; does that allow them to be in all four quadrants at once without ever returning to a quadrant that they left sometime in the past, without ever exceeding the height limit and without ever posing an entanglement risk?

[Scott Carpman]

Originally Posted by 1885.Blake

Do they really have to take a penalty? If before the leave the very first quadrant (the one they start in) they place a small four-legged object atop the lane divider (one leg in each quadrant); and then operate with the bulk of their robot remaining in that original quadrant for the rest of the game; does that allow them to be in all four quadrants at once without ever returning to a quadrant that they left sometime in the past, without ever exceeding the height limit and without ever posing an entanglement risk?

Isn't there a rule about hanging pieces of the robot from the overpass (and how it's not allowed)?

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by dtengineering

What I had in mind for the first suggestion was something like the rather quick sketch I have attached here.

It's definitely good that you're helping them brainstorm. The one bit that I keep getting hung up on is how to get the ball across the line from Q3 to Q4 and back to the robot without putting any part of the robot into Q4. How does the ball play into all this?