Is gripping onto the side of the wall not considered a level 3 climb for the robot? For example like snow problems climb on youtube would that be counted as a lv3 climb or not ? Thank you for the help 
Thank you !!!
To clarify a mechanism that grips onto the side of the lv 3 habitat platform would not be counted as a lv3 climb correct? Sorry for repetition, I want to clarify and have a positive answer.
I am not entirely sure, but that is my interpretation. Presumably, you could tip on the platform and then release.
In the case where you are simply resting on top of a platform, but part of your robot is touching the side of the level 3 platform, but not gripping it, this to me would likely count as a level 3 climb with all other criteria being met. But some refs might interpret this rule differently, so you probably should try not to be touching the side of the platform.
If you let go of the sides so your robot is only supported by/touching the top plane of lvl 3 then it should be a legal climb.
1 Like
I’m pretty sure that does satisfy all of the requirements for being climbed, but I’d encourage you to check the requirements for being supported by the hab platform yourself to make sure
Re: Q108 from FRC Q&A and Section 5.3 Scoring
Make sure that when you attempt a climb to any HAB level, your bumpers are fully above the HAB level top horizontal surface, AND supported by that level or by a robot supported by only that level or the alliance station wall, AND that you are not in contact with any surfaces at any point below that level.
If a referee has any doubt as to you are fulfilling ALL the requirements you will not get the points for the HAB level you were attempting to reach. There is no instant replay or review of any sort once the head ref’s call is finalized and scoring is submitted.
TLDR: Make it easy for the head ref to know your bumpers are fully above the HAB level you are climbing to, and that you are fully supported only by the top horizontal surface of that HAB level (and possibly the alliance wall). Do not have any contact below that level, and do not have any dangling or hanging parts that can make contact below the HAB level you are attempting to score at.
2 Likes
[quote=“Dez, post:8, topic:341768, full:true”]
Make sure that when you attempt a climb to any HAB level, your bumpers are fully above the HAB level top horizontal surface, AND supported by that level or by a robot supported by only that level or the alliance station wall, AND that you are not supported by any surfaces at any point below that level.
If a referee has any doubt as to you are fulfilling ALL the requirements you will not get the points for the HAB level you were attempting to reach.
There is no instant replay or review of any sort once the head ref’s call is finalized and scoring is submitted.[/quote]
I corrected your first statement. Contact is acceptable. Support is not. Once we correct that, the second line is also accurate.
The third line is not true. There is a question box that teams are encouraged to send one student to discuss the ruling with the head referee. Scores can be changed as a result of such conversations. Let’s be clear the word “can” does not have the same meaning as “will” and it’ll be very difficult to convince the head referee the robot wasn’t supported if they or their referee making the call believed it was supported. But, it’s erroneous to say it cannot happen. Even once the scores are submitted changes can be made.
Because a person is unable to determine if any contact is resulting in support or not, you should avoid having any contact below the HAB level you are attempting to climb, or assume you may be scored for the lower level.
As per head referees changing a score because of a question presented by a student in the question box, Section 12 Tournaments would cover that.
No where does it state that Refs will change a score once committed, and because refs will not review any “material” after the match, it should be assumed the score wont change.
1 Like
Isn’t that a strange standard to have? No where does it state they won’t change a score once committed.
You might want to read your questionably quoted word again. You missed three key words that are required to understand the context. If we stick with your word, the quote would be “material of any MATCH.” The idea here is they won’t look at something to show what happened in the match and instead are left to use the recollection of the referees.
It states their decisions are final. It never states when those decisions must be made.
Let’s take an actual event as an example. There was a match last season where all three robots crossed the autonomous line and one robot scored a power cube in the switch. By rule, the alliance should have been awarded the cross points for all three robots and the subsequent ranking point. In this match, the referee made an error entering the scores on the touch panel and didn’t award the correct points. This was missed until a question was raised in the box. The head referee asked the referee who immediately stated all three robots crossed.
The score had gone final. It had been shown to the audience. The conversation took place after the following match (when both the student and head referee had enough time to work through this conversation). The score was corrected. The five points were added and the ranking point was awarded to the alliance.
None of this counters anything said in section 12.2.
To your first point, it’s a tad insulting to ALL people to suggest that nobody is capable enough to look at some situations and determine if there is support or not. Will some be borderline? Sure. But, that doesn’t change that your wording was incorrect. Your advice is good. If there isn’t any contact, there isn’t any question. But, it’s possible for pieces to be touching the side where there also isn’t question as to whether or not there is support. Think about it as “can’t” and “shouldn’t.” You originally stated you can’t, which isn’t true. Your logic states you shouldn’t, which is entirely true.
^^ this. Read Q&A 108. The best plan to completely disengage from those vertical surfaces.
@JeffB Stating all three robots crossed a line and placed a cube in the switch, is definitive. It happened and the is no ambiguity and the ref recalls the situation. The was a mix up of input on the scoring tablet that was rectified.
Lets pose an example. Robot A climbed to HAB level 3 and had their bumpers completely above HAB level 3, but was contacting the vertical side of HAB level 2, and has since been removed from the field after the green light “all clear” was called by the head referee by submitting the score. Team A looks at the score when it is then displayed and notices they were scored for only climbing to HAB level 2, and the coach sends a student to the question box to ask why they were not scored for HAB level 3.
How are you going to argue that the robot was not supported by HAB level 2, when it is an ambiguous case of contact vs support on HAB level 2 and your robot has already been removed from the field?
The examples aren’t as disconnected as you believe. At the point the referee makes a determination, it becomes definitive. It was supported or it wasn’t. Can a team predict how this will be viewed? No. But, it isn’t any different at that point. While it’s “clear” a team crossed the line (this can also be a bit blurry with things between the referee and the robot), the team arguing cannot bring anything to show this happened. At that point, they’re asking a referee to remember what happened. In the same process, they’re asking a referee to take a look at their memory and see if they believe there was contact or support. Are they likely to win this? No. But, it’s not impossible.
Here’s the issue. You’re not arguing for what you stated. You stated you cannot get the points if you’re touching. That’s wholly inaccurate. You’re arguing that you shouldn’t do so to avoid ambiguity. That’s something we’d agree on. But, there’s a very big difference between “can not” and “should not.” Your example didn’t show that to be untrue. You’re still incorrect. You can get climb points while touching the sides. You’re still correct. You shouldn’t design in a way that leaves things in the hands of someone’s eyes from a distance.