|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
YMTC: 41 hangs but the wheel tread breaks, drops down and makes contact with the platform.
50 point for hanging or not?
.
.
.
.
Ans: referee rules a NO HANG.
26-03-2004 23:08
Max Lobovskyawwww, comon, that really sucks. They totally deserved the hang. They were emphasizing the idea of following the meaning of the rules, not being lawyers, and yet this is the kinda call they give. Now imagine this, the tread breaks, and seperates from the robot somewhere away from the top platform. They would totally have been given the hang. Many robots have left stuff on the field and not had rulings like this.
26-03-2004 23:12
Stephen Kowskiplz don't rag on the refs....they do what they think is best...it may not always the way some teams want the rules to be, but that is how they interpret them....
26-03-2004 23:15
Lil' Lavery
Team 25 had a belt fall in Annapolis and weren't counted as hanging either.
26-03-2004 23:28
OneAngryDaisywe (341) had our telescoping pole slip out and hit the HDPE. unfortunately, it was on the opposite side of our driver station so our drivers didnt see it and winch up enough.
26-03-2004 23:28
mtaman02
they should hang b/c i would call it as them being supported by the chin up bar. i believe the score was changed in they're favor after careful and honest thought. don't remember though.
26-03-2004 23:29
MisterX
|
Originally Posted by Stephen Kowski
plz don't rag on the refs....they do what they think is best...it may not always the way some teams want the rules to be, but that is how they interpret them....
|
26-03-2004 23:50
BoyWithCape195i think they should have gotten it (my opinion) becasue they are supported by the bar. Also if you were to remove the belt, it would still be hanging. Its not like its holding the bot up... One again not my call, but just my opinion
27-03-2004 00:05
jonathan lall|
Originally Posted by maxlobovsky
awwww, comon, that really sucks. They totally deserved the hang. They were emphasizing the idea of following the meaning of the rules, not being lawyers, and yet this is the kinda call they give.
|
.
27-03-2004 02:02
Wetzel
You are all correct with the fact that the belt is not supporting the robot. However, you forget the rest of the definition of hanging.
| HANGING – A ROBOT is considered HANGING from the Pull-Up Bar if it is directly SUPPORTED by the horizontal bar and is not touching the carpet, platforms, or goals. |
27-03-2004 13:19
Yan Wang
I would say they were hanging... just because that rule quoted above is extremely narrow and should be revised. In any game, molecules (lol) from the robot's wheel/tread will be lost due to friction from the carpet... there will be banging, ramming into the other robots, etc, and some fragments will be left on the field... Just look at all the pieces/flakes under the ramp from last year's stack attack game. So based on that rule above, I would either have to say, no robot can hang, or I could say that if it's a situation like team 41, I'd count them as hanging. So what if a piece falls off. But too late to change that now 
27-03-2004 13:27
Jeff Rodriguez
|
Originally Posted by Yan Wang
I would say they were hanging... just because that rule quoted above is extremely narrow and should be revised. In any game, molecules (lol) from the robot's wheel/tread will be lost due to friction from the carpet... there will be banging, ramming into the other robots, etc, and some fragments will be left on the field... Just look at all the pieces/flakes under the ramp from last year's stack attack game. So based on that rule above, I would either have to say, no robot can hang, or I could say that if it's a situation like team 41, I'd count them as hanging. So what if a piece falls off. But too late to change that now
![]() |
27-03-2004 13:56
white_ChocOlat8
Something very similar happened in one of our matches actually, except it was with a chain and the refs called it a no hang. But it was a good call because if I remember correctly the rules state that if any part of your robot is touching.
27-03-2004 14:35
Bob92I say no hang. They are touching. How would you feel if you were the other alliance and they counted. I don't think they deserved it because every other team had to build their robot to withstand hits and things breaking so that they would not be touching the platform.
27-03-2004 16:46
MisterX
Atleast all of the refs' decisions are uniform. Every example that has so far been given of similar incidents they were ruled as a no hang as well this one for 41. If half of those were counted and the other half were not then I would be cocerned, however, with all of the judges seeming to agree that it is a no hang, then that must be the rule and not up to interpretation.
27-03-2004 18:29
Max LobovskyI'm sorry my post, was a little to harsh, i edited it. You guys are right, the refs obviously had no bad intentions in mind, its just that its a little frustrating when it seems like your playing by two different sets of rules. Once again, i apologize.
27-03-2004 19:04
roboticscom13Yes it is frustrating. We were having some operator (me) errors and when we first hung in the real competition our back piece of Lexan with our numbers on it was being held on by one cable tie and was touching the platform and it didn't count as a hang. The refs made the right call because of the specifics of the rules it was just a lil frustrating to lose the round.
27-03-2004 19:12
Katie Reynolds
|
Originally Posted by BoyWithCape195
i think they should have gotten it (my opinion) becasue they are supported by the bar. Also if you were to remove the belt, it would still be hanging. Its not like its holding the bot up... One again not my call, but just my opinion
|
27-03-2004 21:04
Smrtman5Yea, that match really did suck. We sheared our left drive pully and we managed to get up and hang with only our right side operational. Cruel twist of fate. Luckily we got someone to the machine shop to make another timing pulley from some Al bar stock. In the meantime, we used the dremel to make new notches!
Thanks to whomever took that pic!
28-03-2004 16:16
MOEmaniac
I say give them the hang because is that tread really supporting any weight. If they believed that it was then they should have taken the tread away and seen if the robot would have fallen. Its like sayin OMG there a little piece of string that is touching the platform and its supporting weight
. They seriously should have been given the hang.
28-03-2004 16:59
kevin.li.rit
|
Originally Posted by MOEmaniac
I say give them the hang because is that tread really supporting any weight. If they believed that it was then they should have taken the tread away and seen if the robot would have fallen. Its like sayin OMG there a little piece of string that is touching the platform and its supporting weight
. They seriously should have been given the hang. |
28-03-2004 17:23
Jeff Waegelin
Based on the way we called the rules at the Detroit Regional, I would say that is not hanging. Yes, the robot is supported entirely by the bar. BUT, a part of the robot is touching the platform. You can try to argue that it's not supporting anything... but it doesn't need to be supporting to discount the hang; just touching.
28-03-2004 17:25
jonathan lallThis is strange. It has been established already that, according to the rules, if the robot is still touching it is not hanging. Furthermore, even if that part wasn't in the rules, one could deduce whether the robot was hanging or not with a little common sense:
1) The tread is still part of the robot, being partially attached, and all.
2) The tread is supporting its own weight.
The fact that the tread doesn't weigh very much does not preclude the fact that part of the robot is supported by the ground. Sure it's unfortunate that they couldn't hang, but that doesn't warrant them getting 50 points. For those of you that say you could remove the tread to see if the robot would hang, I implore you to read this again and think about it.
28-03-2004 18:03
Max LobovskyI understand the wording of the rules and all, it just seems pretty dumb that if they had had a worse malfunction where the tread came completely off, they would have got more points. They should have designed their robot to break more spectaularly, i guess.
28-03-2004 18:06
Wetzel
|
Originally Posted by Coffeeism
Looks like that white nub of a piston or something is supporting weight.
|
28-03-2004 22:58
Ryan F.No, hang, as the rules state no part of the robot may be touching the ground. Though, if I was on 47 I probably would be feeling very different. Though the rules state it. I'm a little surprised at the ruling. The refs at the midwest regional seemed to be extremely leniant about hanging. I saw a couple of robots hanging on the very inner part of the connecction between the vertical and horizontal bar, which was ruled illegal in other regionals.
29-03-2004 23:25
Joe Ross
What if the belt was no longer attached to the robot in any way, but just lying on the platform. Then would you count them as hanging?
29-03-2004 23:33
Bill Gold|
Originally Posted by Joe Ross
What if the chain was no longer attached to the robot in any way, but just lying on the platform. Then would you count them as hanging?
|
30-03-2004 11:30
KenWittlief
Joe Ross has a good point - the rules as written are already lenient and forgiving - if a part falls off your bot completely (say a piece of foam bumper somewhere on the field) it could be agrued that your bot is not 'hanging' because of piece of it is lying on the floor in the middle of the field - therefor your WHOLE bot is not hanging - but the rules do not go to that extreem
the reason the bot in the photo is not hanging is the belt is part of the bot and its supported by the floor - that part is broken though, right? ok - so what if an arm broke and was supported by the floor? what if a cable broke on one side and two wheels were in the air and two were on the floor - you could argue that if the bot was lifted high enough the remaining cable would support it
but that IS the nature of the challege - to get your WHOLE bot up in the air, not just the working parts, the broken parts too - if its still attached then no hang.
BTW something similar happened last year - a team put a little flag on their bot so they could see it on the other side of the ramp - at the end of the match the bot was ontop of the ramp, but the little flag was drooped over and touching the top of the side railing - no 50 points for them either.
30-03-2004 16:58
MOEmaniac
I understand the rules completely and i respect them but it just seems like its robbing the team of the pride that it gets for getting those 50 pts. and the hang.
30-03-2004 17:31
Bill Gold|
Originally Posted by MOEmaniac
I understand the rules completely and i respect them but it just seems like its robbing the team of the pride that it gets for getting those 50 pts. and the hang.
|
30-03-2004 17:41
jonathan lallIf something falls off a robot, it is no longer part of that robot. Strictly according to the rules' wording (but not their spirit), this is not the case, as a robot is defined.
| Anything (that has passed inspection) that a team places on the field at the beginning of a match. |
30-03-2004 18:20
Elgin Clock
By the end of this competition where the 41 bot was pictured (NYC) we had a plate full of those mysterious robot parts that were left on the field.
The strangest things I saw on that plate were a screwdriver, and a broken off drill bit.
Then there was a lot of screws, pieces of the lights, a little piece of 80-20, a lot of chain links and other various items.