I have already submitted the question to the Q & A, but I wanted to know how prevalent the issue might be.
Here is my question:
According to 2.2.5, “A Bridge will count as Balanced if it is within 5° of horizontal and all Robots touching it are fully supported by it,” but I have seen rulings that count the bridge as balanced for one robot (10 points) when another robot was touching bridge and the ground. Please clarify?
I thought I saw some of these calls in week one, but I really wasn’t sure. However, after seeing 148’s “foot,” I was thinking about how to add something to our robot and wondered, “Can I have something that touches the ground and even if we don’t get the three robot balance, will the two count if my ‘foot’ is touching the ground?” Of course, I check the rules and found the definition of Balanced Bridge as noted in my question above (I think this definition should be part of G40 in the Game Section, though). So, I realized I need to bring the “foot” up.
However, I just saw this call in Match 53 at the Oregon Regional, which prompted me to actually ask the question. So, what have others seen/experienced? Is anyone questioning these calls at competition?
From Team Update 1-23: A Bridge will count as Balanced if it is within 5° of horizontal and all Robots touching it are fully supported by it.
Therefore if a robot uses a supporting mechanism to hold the bridge up for the entirety of the balancing act, the bridge will not count as balanced and any additional robots on the bridge won’t count either, since the bridge, by definition, is not balanced.
Thanks for noting the update, but my point is that the referees are not “up to snuff” regarding this rule. Sorry I didn’t be a picture, but in the match I mentioned, one blue robot was balanced and another blue robot was leaning on the side of the bridge and on the ground. The score before bridge points was 6 (red) to 7 (blue). After bridge points, the score was 6 (red) and 17 (blue). I know it doesn’t change the outcome of this match itself, but my concern is how often is this definition being overlooked.
I mistakenly awarded bridge points. It’s easy to do with the ref scoring touchpad, because you put in how many robots are on the bridge, and the bridge sensors say it was balanced. The head ref would have to back it out and put zero on the bridge to get the software to score it correctly. After it was questioned, we confirmed the rule and corrected the score. But because it didn’t affect the outcome of the match, we didn’t make a new announcement of the score.
Thanks for that clarification. I was also watching and scratching my head over that one… thought maybe my eyes were going and that other bot wasn’t really touching the bridge, or something. Good to know I’m not THAT blind.
To clarify, I wasn’t lucky enough to ref at the Hawaii Regional. This was at the Gull Lake District. But the Hawaii head ref may have made the same mistake.
And if it’s that easy a mistake to make… well, live and learn. I’m pretty sure the rest of the refs will hear about this via various channels and be sure to be careful.
Thanks for the clarification, Gary. I thought I imagined it during Week 1 as I had to check the rules myself. But, after it happened again today, I had to add it to the Q & A so that referees might be reminded.
Also, just a general THANK YOU to all the referees…definitely a difficult job to keep track of all these rules for a game that changes each year.
We had an interesting situation at Lake Superior. Two bots and one ball on the bridge. The ball was mushed up against the side wall between the two bots. Now, there was a GDC ruling that a bot touching the side wall would be considered as partially supported by the wall and balance would still be awarded. But in this case the ball was between the wall and the bot and one could argue the high friction of the ball against the wall may have provided some extra support, thus resulting in failure to balance.
