Isn’t there a rule about hanging pieces of the robot from the overpass (and how it’s not allowed)?
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?
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” 
Maybe I’ve missed something… I’m not suggesting that the robot does not proceed into Q4, (althogh I think I might have misnumbered in my original post by considering the home stretch as Q-zero rather than Q-1) just that the robot enters Q4 from Q3 by crossing the opponent’s finish line before crossing the quadrant line.
Mind you, now that I check thebluealliance in more detail it appears 190 may be finished for the season, making much of this hypothesizing a moot point.
Kudos to them for going with a cool idea. It is great to see teams thinking outside the box. Or, in this case, outside the quadrant!
Jason
How is 190 done for the season? They are A) a legacy team and B) current World Champs on Einstein. While they might need to change their strategy, they should by all means be at Champs next month.
They are **not **done for the season. Thebluealliance doesn’t look like it is showing teams as signed up for the championship event. The official first list does.
Besides, 190 is one of the legacy teams and has an automatic bid to the Championships every year, as well as having a bid for being 2007 World Champs.
The mechanism should work ok as a ‘normal’ hurdling bot, perhaps putting up 2-3 hurdles a match without incurring the wrath of G22. (I don’t know enough about the drivetrain to say that they could do much more, my guess would be that this design allows them to compromise on the speed/strength of the drivetrain.)
They do have, with their suction ‘cymbal’ one of the best pickup mechanisms I’ve seen. That thing is a beast to watch in person. Unfortunately they would have to collapse the entire thing to get under the overpass and around the track…
The Blue Alliance basically separates championship into 5 events (the 4 divisions and Einstein). As a result, they don’t really list teams going to the championships until divisions are posted (or they start guessing them 
) . Maybe they should have a temporary event called the Championship since we all rely on them so much now :]
Our team (2158) was seriously considering this design during week 1 of build season, but decided against it only because we thought it would be too complex and might be hard to adhere to the 80" rule. That’s why we asked the Q&A question that everyone has been referring to.
I’m still confused as to why the concept was ruled illegal by <G22>. The definition of CROSSING is that the entire robot must cross a finish line or lane marker. With 190’s design, the base stays in Q1 the whole time, so it nevers crosses, correct? What am I missing?
In my mind, at least, you’re missing the fact that while the robot is in its home stretch, parts of the robot break the plane of the lane marker (which extends under the lane divider) into the previous quadrant.
There’s also the fact that the ball never crosses the plane over the actually lines separating Q2-Q3 and Q4-Q1. The ball, and consequently parts of the robot, do cross the plane over the finish lines, however. May have something to do with it.
Those lines do extend under the overpass, and are thus being crossed. As stated by The Arena:
(Though since there is physically no gaffers tape under the lane divider to the best of my knowledge, the phrasing makes this technically a false statement.)
This interpretation would also make the blue robot’s knocking down of the opposing trackball from its home zone in the game animation receive a penalty under <G22> in addition to the possible 80 inch violation. Ouch! No wonder that animation wasn’t scored!
…I didn’t want to be a lawyer, I swear! This game has so many details!
For those of you that don’t understand why it is illegal, here are some things to help you out:
-
1114 and 190 asked a question about holding onto the ball as you go over the overpass and how far off the ground you should be when you let go. It was crystal clear (based on the Q & A) that intent of the rule was that the ball was approximately at the height of the overpass. 1114 decided against this strategy because of the GDC response here: http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=8151. Apparently, 190 ignored this response.
-
No one ever asked about this strategy as relating to G22. Is the GDC supposed to aswer questions that aren’t asked?
-
If a box on wheels drives out at the start of teleoperated and starts spinning perfectly counterclockwise while in the starting quandrant and a corner of their robot goes into quandrant 4, then they will get a penalty each time. Why is it different for an arm?
-
To be considered to enter a quadrant, the entire robot has to enter that quadrant. So the robot never entered Q2 or Q3, so Q4 is still the previous quadrant.
-
The reason many other teams did not use this strategy is because of the response in the Q & A above and G22. We wanted to do someting very similar to this, but G22 kept getting in the way.
Now for a small rant:
How can you not see how clear the G22 violation is? The robot spinning something counter-clockwise is completely irrelevant. The counterclockwise term only has to do with how a robot moves from quadrant to quadrant not how the robot moves with respect to itself. We want the GDC to have less rules, but we as teams continue to find loopholes. Stop it. The answer from the GDC on releasing the ball was clear. They said, “at least the height of the overpass.” 190 simply ignored the answer. Why? Because it wasn’t specifically in the rules, but the answer clearly stated the intent. I just don’t get it. Maybe I just don’t have a good enough imagination.
I think while moving into the next two quadrants is leagal, as soon as they get into the third it’s a G22 violation because they still haven’t completely crossed the next three lines to legally be in that quadrant.
Thanks Paul. It really is cut and dry.
Even if this was legal why would you do it? Teams with shooters and arms can hurdle 5,6, and even 7 times a match. 190 has hurdled once, twice this way?
You would do it because it is a creative design solution to the competition.
I understand the problem and why it is not legal yet this question clearly lays out EXACTLY what 190 does. And even though rule G22 was not mentioned, the question only asks if the move is legal, it does not ask if it breaks such-and-such a rule. Therefore, GDC should of mentioned G22 in there response and said it was not legal, yet they didn’t.
As for my contrubution to the brainstorming. I suggest the add a “wrist” and a suction “lock” to the end of there arm, this way you can lock the suction cup in place when it is reeled back to the top of the arm, rotate the wrist (so now the ball sits beside the arm, as oppose to underneath it) and rotate you arm until the ball has passed into Q4 yet the arm has not. Then retract the arm (which they can already do, I think) back into Q1, and extend back into Q2, dropping the ball.
I hope they find a good solution to the problems they now have!
The GDC messed up by not citing in their response, in addition to , etc., and consequently said it was “legal”. I would speculate that 190 assumed that because the Q&A declared it to be legal, that it would be a valid strategy irrespective of ; that’s been proven wrong now, obviously.
If it was stated plainly in the rules that the Q&A exists to give guidance for situations that aren’t clear in the rules, but can’t change or override a rule already in force, maybe 190 would have thought better of the strategy.
The linked response basically says, ‘don’t make us change the rules to your detriment’. If the intent of this rule was so important to the GDC, they should have either changed the rule to conform with their intent by issuing an update, or acknowledged that they hadn’t considered that situation, and would allow anything. There’s no need for confusing teams with the statement that they might issue a rule change.
Of course, given that uncertainty, 190 took a significant risk, exploiting something that the GDC had expressed displeasure about. But again, the GDC should have been clearer about what is required, and what would be grudgingly permitted.
Odd thing is, one of our students thought of this very idea. We decided not to rock the boat, and play the game with a more traditional approach. I’m sure that student will be excited that a team actually had the same idea and created it.
Very good point. However G22 reads:
“Once a ROBOT has CROSSED a LANE MARKER or FINISH LINE, it shall not
break the plane of the line by moving in the clockwise direction.”
Which can be interpreted to mean that breaking the plane in a counter-clockwise direction is not a penalty. After all, breaking the plane and crossing a lane marker are two different activities with seperate definitions.
While I can appreciate the self-described rant on looking for “loopholes” I would suggest the alternative issue is one of discussing what the rules actually say, and what they actually mean. Encouraging a student to identify the “loopholes” in the FRC rule book might one day prevent them from leaving a costly loophole in a contract or specification.
Or it might just teach them to read text in a more critical manner.
Jason
I tell students not to be disappointed that the team isn’t using their idea to design the robot, because they will certainly see someone else using their idea at a tournament and they can either be relieved that their own team *didn’t *try it, or have an opportunity for a smug “I told you so.” Either way, the student wins!