"noodle hats" for Quals

FIRST General Forum
1

With the number of quality FCS robots available across the divisions, it would seem to be important for alliances to have "noodle hat"s, i.e. shot blockers available in Quals. Letting even a modest FCS have full reign in a Qual is a prescription for a loss for the non-FCS equipped side.

So, the prescription is to have a “noodle hat” blocker guy available on the opposite side. A recent thread on YMTC suggests that on again/off again application of "noodle hat"s is probably against the rules, so any bot with aspirations of helping their alliances through Quals should be inspected with their “noodle hat” as an “additional mechanism”, making weight accordingly.

Of course, all you folks out there with blockers already available, “never mind”! :wink:

Your alliance partners will love you if you can shut down an opposing FCS, that’s for sure! :smiley:

2

Interesting that a hybrid FCS would suggest this :rolleyes:

I think it’s a pretty brilliant idea, and it shouldn’t be too difficult to still make weight with the addition of some noodles.

3

The point of the hybrid FCS is just that: to be a hybrid. It allows versatility, should the opposing alliance choose not to block, the hybrid may take advantage of that choice. Should they choose to defend, they can use the full court capabilities to pull the defense closer (away from the pyramid) by pretending to full court, giving them an easier and more efficient cycle.

I always wonder why a team would choose not to defend. I understand the want and need to show off before alliance selection, but in my opinion, it shows poorly that a team would allow these full court monsters to go undefended, practically resigning the match before it is even played.

I suppose there is always the option of trying to outscore the full court (the reason most teams choose not to block), but that’s only possible for a small number of teams, and the “noodle hat” is a much more plausible solution. I’ve seen way too many qualification matches where an alliance chooses not to defend, and loses what otherwise should have been an easily winnable match.

4

Just putting myself in “the other guy’s shoes” (GP in so many words), recalling what our fellow District Winner (and Archi entrant) 33 was facing when he looked across the field at Bedford Q40 and saw 3 FCS’s (469, 326, 910) looking back! :yikes:

And anyone facing 67 “naked” ought to review MSC F-1 to see how slim their prospects would be! :ahh:

Just sayin’…

5

There shouldn’t be a problem taking your robot’s hat off & putting back on later, assuming you were properly inspected after you put it on in the first place. What would be a problem is if you had to take a mechanism off the robot to make weight for the hat; in that case it’d be against the rules to put the original mechanism back on.

If you can make weight with both (say you need to take something off to make room for the hat) and have them both inspected with your robot then you would have no problem interchanging them at will. Without the need for re-inspection each time.

6

What if team A makes a blocker for team B because they are together for match 1, then team A takes a the blocker back and puts it on team C in match 18?

Not sure how to call that one.

7

There are a couple of ways to call it.

Team C would need to be inspected with the blocker on. Naturally, they’d have to pass. Otherwise, moot point, team C can’t use the blocker.

But the thing is, let’s say that somebody notices that Team A is showing up, and every match they show up in, one of their alliance partners is carrying the same blocker. It’s not inconceivable that somebody will figure out that Team A has the blocker, and is putting it on other teams’ robots (with their permission, obviously). Is there a rule that would prevent it? I can’t think of one off the top of my head. But there might be a way to rule that it’s illegal. I’m thinking something on the order of the “each team can only bring one robot” rule combined with a narrowish reading of the Withholding Allowance rules and the “combined weight of mechanisms used in a modular system” rules would be enough to push it into the non-legal zone–but before going that far, the GDC members present would probably be asked to huddle up on the issue.

8

My assumption would be that teams B and C would need to get inspected/reinspected wearing it before using it. Some concern may be brought up about dual ownership of a robot component, but I’m pretty sure there is nowhere in the rules that says or implies that robots can’t share. Inspectors would have a tough time justifying a decision to not let this happen.

9

To start, let’s assume that the blocker was constructed from raw materials at CMP, so there’s no concern about the withholding allowance. Each robot with the blocker would have to be inspected and make weight with the blocker, and if they had to take something off to make weight that something could never be reinstalled.

If team A brought the blocker pre-constructed, that’d be part of their withholding. And, I think, part of the withholding of every other team that used it. So in this case team A needs to be carefully asking the right questions before they hand over the thing for installation.

I don’t think the GDC has anything to do with rules interpretation at the tournament. This one would belong to the Lead Robot Inspector of the tournament (or Division, at CMP) – see 5.5.2 in the game manual. The LRI may consult with the lead LRI (Big Al) if he or she feels the need. How Al makes rulings for things like this, I don’t know; I’m sure he has all the contacts he needs at FIRST HQ but I would have no idea how he uses them.

10

I would assume that the LRIs can, like the Head Refs, call on other sources, including GDC members that happen to be present (and this being the Championship, that would probably be most of them). In this sort of case, there would be just about zero precedent, so there is nothing to base a call on other than the rules (which would probably allow it, but I think there’s just enough gray to slide over if you take a VERY narrow interpretation). Whether or not Al considered it legal or not, I think he’d probably grab one just to double-check before making a ruling.

If I was to rule it illegal, this is how I would do it: Team A is supplying a part to multiple teams, the same part in fact (this is important). The question is, quite simply: Is it then part of Team A’s robot, or the other teams’ robots? Looking at the definition of ROBOT from the Manual, I could probably make a pretty strong case either way. If it is ruled part of Team A’s robot (and the way I could rule it that way is that it is part of an electromechanical assembly that is designed to play UA, though it is separate from the rest of that assembly), then there are a number of ways to rule it illegal on the field or in inspection, the least of which is a T-foul (G13) and from there they go up to DQ/fix the robot. Of course, it could also be ruled that such a part is a part of all the other teams’ robots, just supplied by another team. (It’s not a COTS part, so it is thus a FABRICATED ITEM, thus no trouble over team as VENDOR.)

Of course, this is a bit of a stretch to do, and I don’t think that anybody would go that far unless there were significant complaints.

11

If I was inspecting robot C (the part’s already been on B) and knew what was happening (one would hope the teams tell the inspector, but they may not even know what they’re doing is even close to fishy) I’d have no problem considering the part a temporary part of robot B, C, D, or whatever. I’d never even consider it part of robot A (unless they put it on as well, but even then I don’t think they’re any different from the other teams wearing the part), except for the potential withholding allowance issue. I wouldn’t worry about who built it; we have teams helping other teams all the time, and that help frequently involves fabrication. I don’t recall ever hearing anyone consider that an issue.

This is the only reason I’d even mention this to my LRI. I’m pretty confident that my interpretation is within the rules (at least, I am until one of the many people bigger than I chimes in and says otherwise :ahh:) but I would want the LRI & Head Referee to know in case there are inquiries from other parties.

As far as I can tell there’s no provision in the rules that puts the GDC in the chain of authority for rulings on the legality of this. I’m not saying that they shouldn’t or wouldn’t carry some potential weight; I know I’d listen if I was a LRI. But as written the rules say that if anyone (which includes a member of the GDC) complains to the LRI about a ruling on “…any COMPONENT, MECHANISM, or ROBOT.” (5.5.2) he or she is within proper boundaries to decide the complaint doesn’t merit changing that ruling. Whether or not FIRST allowed that person to ever be an LRI again after something like that happens remains to be seen. :slight_smile:

12

I think you’re comparing apples and oranges.

When teams help other teams, the parts tend to stay with one robot. Sure, there might be some exceptions, but it doesn’t matter who builds that part.

What we’re discussing is the issue where the exact same part turns up on multiple robots throughout the event, and the same team is always on the field with it, irregardless of which robot it is actually on in that match. Who built it is not relevant for this discussion–let’s actually assume that Team D (not attending the event) built it for/with Team A at the Magnolia Regional before elims, just to be on the safe side and eliminate the builders from the equation entirely. So: It’s always on the field with Team A. Whether it’s on Team A’s robot or not, it’s always out there. Is it part of Team A’s robot, or part of their partners’ robots that use it?

Sure, for the match, it’s part of the robot using it, and has to pass inspection on that robot. But for the competition, which robot is it a part of? Can you tell me, that for the entire competition, it is not a part of Team A’s

electromechanical assembly built …] to perform specific tasks when competing in ULTIMATE ASCENT. It includes all of the basic systems required to be an active participant in the game: power, communications, control, mobility, and actuation. The implementation must obviously follow a design approach intended to play ULTIMATE ASCENT …].
After all, it is a strategic device intended to play UA defense of a particular type, and it presumably falls under electromechanical (the mechanical side at least). And it’s only out there when Team A is out there.

Admittedly, this is a stretch. I’d rule it legal, but it’s a judgement call, so I wouldn’t say I’d make a similar decision if a similar situation would arise in 2014.

13

At least I was still with fruit. :smiley: Actually, what I was trying to do was dismiss “who built it” from the equation; you did that much more clearly. So I think we agree on this; who built the part is not really relevant.

Yes, I have no problem saying that I don’t think this is part of team A’s robot. To whom the mechanism belongs is irrelevant; what matters imo is to which robot that mechanism is attached. The part we’re discussing clearly is not a ROBOT itself; it doesn’t have “…all of the basic systems…”. In fact, it’s not even one of those basic systems; blocking shots is not required to play this year’s game.

I hope I’m staying within the fruit category again ;); how about this: Team A has a problem with their digital sidecar, and borrows one from team B next door, who has a spare. Later in the day, they get their own replacement & swap out team A’s part for the one that belongs to them. The next morning, team C needs a sidecar & borrows the same sidecar from team A. I don’t think anyone would consider the sidecar part of team A’s robot even if they are on the field at the same time as the sidecar, both times. I also don’t think anyone would find any problem with that scenario whatsoever. If you think it’s unrealistic for team B to swap out a sidecar twice, substitute whatever part you’d like.

I know it’s not the exact situation, but in my mind, at least, it’s a relevant analogy. I don’t think FABRICATION vs. COTS part makes any difference on the question of “to which robot does this part belong?” I don’t really think we’re disagreeing here, although I find it an interesting discussion that’s helping me think about the rules a bit. Which is good, since I’m going to need them when inspections start in St. Louis. Which is now about 94 hours away. :ahh:

14

Ya watching 67 start to fling discs full court without any sort of defense in there way is scary. At Waterford we had to face the HOT team in the first round of eliminations. Our lunch time became a mad scramble to add a blocker. Since then we even made a deploy-able shield to compete with tall FCS. FCS should not be allowed to camp in the corner and shoot without any defense. Especially when a blocker can be made and added for a match so easily. We have our deploy-able Polycarb hat ready for Worlds!

15

I would point out the following:

This device is clearly designed as part of a robot to play the game Ultimate Ascent. It is not a ROBOT itself, but it is quite clearly part of one. I think we can agree on that.

So, Team A has brought a ROBOT, which ROBOT has a part that is not necessarily mounted on Team A’s robot although it appears in every Team A match, mounted on a robot. The question is, is that part still part of Team A’s robot? Your answer is that for any given match, the answer is “No” (assuming of course that the part is not actually on Team A’s robot). My answer is “Yes”, because while it does not appear on Team A’s robot in every match, they are the ones using it every match (though their partners are presumably quite willing participants). On a per-match basis, you are quite correct. Over the entire event, I think it becomes less and less arguable that this device is actually part of Team A’s robot, when it appears on Team B, Team C, Team D, Team E, and so on, only when they are on an alliance with Team A (and in no other matches).

Inspections are currently on a per-match basis.

I hope I’m staying within the fruit category again ;); how about this: Team A has a problem with their digital sidecar, and borrows one from team B next door, who has a spare. Later in the day, they get their own replacement & swap out team A’s part for the one that belongs to them. The next morning, team C needs a sidecar & borrows the same sidecar from team A. I don’t think anyone would consider the sidecar part of team A’s robot even if they are on the field at the same time as the sidecar, both times. I also don’t think anyone would find any problem with that scenario whatsoever. If you think it’s unrealistic for team B to swap out a sidecar twice, substitute whatever part you’d like.
I don’t think anyone would consider the sidecar part of team A’s robot, either–mainly because presumably they have one on there that’s functional. If they swapped their only one, I would expect that Team A would get the GP award for sacrificing their robot performance to assist their partners. Sidecars are almost a required component.

The trick with Fabricated vs COTS is that a COTS item can probably be put on just about any robot that has a spot for it with no modification. Most robots would have spots for sidecars, cRIOs, Jaguars, Victors, Talons, batteries, etc. Those are all COTS parts. But if I have a robot with bumpers and you have a robot with bumpers and we need to swap for some reason, we probably won’t be able to do that without modification, because chances are our Fabricated Items do not have the same mounting system at all. Fabricated Items tend to be custom for a particular robot (or two or three, for collaborations and practice robots), requiring some modification to robot or item to mount to another robot.

I agree, this is a very interesting discussion. Maybe next year we’ll see some resolution in the game design. (I also think it relates to the “win match or win tournament” meta-game discussions, where the right answer is “both!”.)

16

So, Team A has brought a ROBOT, which ROBOT has a part that is not necessarily mounted on Team A’s robot although it appears in every Team A match, mounted on a robot. The question is, is that part still part of Team A’s robot? Your answer is that for any given match, the answer is “No” (assuming of course that the part is not actually on Team A’s robot). My answer is “Yes”, because while it does not appear on Team A’s robot in every match, they are the ones using it every match (though their partners are presumably quite willing participants). On a per-match basis, you are quite correct. Over the entire event, I think it becomes less and less arguable that this device is actually part of Team A’s robot, when it appears on Team B, Team C, Team D, Team E, and so on, only when they are on an alliance with Team A (and in no other matches).

Interesting; now I understand where you’re going and how you’re getting there. And unfortunately I have to withdraw my “I think we agree” statement, although “interesting discussion” applies even more. I never thought of a robot part being considered this way. The difference appears to be form vs. function. If the part is connected to robot B, it’s clearly a part of that robot. Now, the question is if team A built it, but put it on robot B, is that function the defining factor of whose robot “owns” the part, or is the form – where it’s connected – the defining factor?

Your reasoning seems to be based on a matter of degree. You’ve already agreed that it’s OK for a team to help another team build their robot, and that such fabrications are part of the helpee’s bot. So if it’s one bot, apparently it’s OK to not call this part of team A’s robot. If it’s some number more than one robot using another team’s fabricated part, that part somehow becomes part of the building team’s robot. What’s the right number? If I make the example more specific, does it change things? Said specific example would be when a team builds a blocker for one other, single, robot to use in a single match.

I submit another factor for your consideration – the definition of “use”. All alliance partners use, in effect, other same-alliance robots’ features. If my alliance’s defensive bot relies on my team’s shooter to score, that doesn’t make our shooter part of their bot. Same thing with us using them to keep the other alliance’s FCS from getting to the loading zone; their drive train clearly isn’t part of our robot. Somewhere there must be a definition of “use” that crosses the line from my point of view to yours, but I have no idea where that point is.

Another problem: If this part really is part of team A’s robot then R05 says it must be weighed with that robot. Since it’s not part of teams B, C, D, etc. robots, the weight of this blocker doesn’t affect their weight. I really am interested in hearing how you explain this one. :wink:

I’m intrigued by your logic, but you haven’t convinced me that a part not physically attached to a robot during a match can be considered part of that robot. This doesn’t count parts that fall off, of course.

Fabricated Items tend to be custom for a particular robot (or two or three, for collaborations and practice robots), requiring some modification to robot or item to mount to another robot.

This one apparently isn’t very customized. :slight_smile: Does the fact that this exchangeable blocker actually fits on 12 different robots make it function like a COTS part?

I agree, this is a very interesting discussion. Maybe next year we’ll see some resolution in the game design. (I also think it relates to the “win match or win tournament” meta-game discussions, where the right answer is “both!”.)

I think you’re dreaming, but I hope you’re right. The rules do get improved & more clear every year, but never enough that I think they’re actually totally clear. The “win matches or tournaments” discussion is one of the more interesting ones on CD, and I don’t see how it’ll ever go away. I hope not; I think it makes a lot of people think.

Tangent:

Sidecars are almost a required component.

Nah, they’re absolutely required. R53 and R67 say that all relay modules, servos, and PWM motor controllers must be plugged into the digital sidecar. And if you somehow build an all-pneumatic robot, you still have to have a sidecar; the RSL has to be plugged into the sidecar to function, and all robots must have a RSL. ::rtm::

17

As I noted before, A builds it and puts it on B’s robot, which is quite normal. The defining factor is not that A builds it and puts it on B’s robot. It is that A builds it, puts it on B’s robot, takes it off of B’s robot and puts it on C in the next match. After a few matches of that, then it’s pretty obvious that Team A is the “owner” of the part, due to the form–where it resides between used and the “user” who it appears with most commonly–though in an individual match it’s “loaned” to another robot to “own”.

Your reasoning seems to be based on a matter of degree. You’ve already agreed that it’s OK for a team to help another team build their robot, and that such fabrications are part of the helpee’s bot. So if it’s one bot, apparently it’s OK to not call this part of team A’s robot. If it’s some number more than one robot using another team’s fabricated part, that part somehow becomes part of the building team’s robot. What’s the right number? If I make the example more specific, does it change things? Said specific example would be when a team builds a blocker for one other, single, robot to use in a single match.
I think it’s “in the eye” here. A team building a blocker for another robot, singular, to use in one or more matches (singular or plural) is building it for that other robot. Or a team building blockers, plural, for partners, plural (in toto, not necessarily in a single match), to use in matches, plural, with a ratio of 1 blocker to 1 team, would still be on the other robot.

But for a team building a blocker, singular, for other robots, plural, to use in one match and return so other robots, plural can use it… That’s stretching it quite a bit. How far? I will take the GDC approach and go with “if a reasonably astute observer thinks there’s something funny going on, something funny is going on”.

I submit another factor for your consideration – the definition of “use”. All alliance partners use, in effect, other same-alliance robots’ features. If my alliance’s defensive bot relies on my team’s shooter to score, that doesn’t make our shooter part of their bot. Same thing with us using them to keep the other alliance’s FCS from getting to the loading zone; their drive train clearly isn’t part of our robot. Somewhere there must be a definition of “use” that crosses the line from my point of view to yours, but I have no idea where that point is.
Your shooter stays on your robot, does it not? Their defense robot does not change drivetrains, correct? In those cases, you make use of the entire robot, in toto, unseparated (we hope it’s not falling apart). In the blocker case under consideration, the use of the part requires it to be removed from one robot and placed onto another. This, I think, would be the crossing of the line.

Another problem: If this part really is part of team A’s robot then R05 says it must be weighed with that robot. Since it’s not part of teams B, C, D, etc. robots, the weight of this blocker doesn’t affect their weight. I really am interested in hearing how you explain this one. :wink:

I’ll make a stab at it. The part is part of team A’s robot overall, and passed inspection with them (unless they like a lot of red cards for non-inspected robot). However, because each other robot that carries it is making a modification, it must pass inspection too, with it aboard, and it is NOT exempt from size and weight, unlike the battery and bumpers. Team A does not have to reinspect (unless they made another modification), because they passed inspection with it aboard, but are not using it. The implications of this are that any team that makes a modification to carry the blocker for that one match must not unmake the modifications (that’s been covered before), and Team A needs to be able to replace the blocker on their robot at any time.

I think that this would be a pretty interesting gray area to explore with the GDC, just sort of in casual conversation, and see what they thought about devices that showed up in one robot’s matches that were not on that robot or held by the drive team. That should be entertaining…

18

If we extrapolate this a bit…

We could propose a “generic blocker” as a strap-on in the queue line. :slight_smile:

All that would be needed is for a bot to be weighed in with that blocker at inspection time as an “additional mechanism”. Good to go. Hmm… probably need at least N>=2 of them, for each alliance, spares, whatever.

We could even get a little sticker printed up for bots that had been certified “noodle hat capable”! :stuck_out_tongue:

Kind of like last year’s “Nessie” stickers…

19

I think we’ve gotten, at least for me, to “agree to disagree” – I’m still not convinced that this is stretching anything. Although I will admit that while most people who know me will give me the “astute observer” label, some significant percentage won’t attach “reasonable.” :slight_smile:

This is circular logic. The discussion so far has been that the part isn’t on team A’s robot; they just give it to an alliance partner every match, and then take it back. You’ve been saying that this makes it part of team A’s robot; I don’t think so. It changes things to have it have been attached to team A’s robot at any point in time. In that case, we agree; it’s clearly part of team A’s robot. BUT (in my opinion, anyway) only while it’s physically attached to team A’s robot. If it’s attached to team B’s bot, then it needs to be considered part of that robot, and team A – for that match – has nothing to do with it except ownership.

Other than the “gray area” part of of your statement, I agree – I would like to see what the GDC said about this. Obviously, I don’t think there’d be much of a discussion, since I think they’ll agree with me. :smiley: But I’d still like to see what they say.

This is good; you’ve made me think about something I wouldn’t have otherwise. Thank you.

20

Can someone with access to the Q&A ask this before it closes on Wednesday? We might get lucky and get a response.