Team 2412 Presents Project: Overtime

Two off-topic observations, from following 2412 qual matches at PNW DCMP today:

  1. They are playing good D most of the time.

  2. Production of this event is really good. Excellent GA and inter-match color commentary.

4 Likes

Usually the biggest rule changes to come post kickoff has always been related to human interactions, and scoring.

Scoring - changing scoring need for champs and the ability to change what game pieces are worth.

The bigger human interactions I can think of is

2013 - no more throwing all the discs when the 30 second mark starts.( made sense many people were throwing wildly and could it of led to injuries and issues, thought would have been more fun for human players.)

2015 - the noodle agreement and chute door specifications/clarifications.

There are others I am forgetting right now. The only big rule change I can think of (others can chime in with more) is the no hanging off the edge of the bridge in 2012 which unfortunately stopped some unique ideas.

Agree with you, overall good production. Haven’t been a big fan of the constantly changing camera views during matches though, makes it hard to follow some action.

2014 clarification of what “possession” of the ball required

In addition to some (I think minor) safety concerns, there is some uncertainty over the Pandora’s box that has been opened by these Q&A answers. This might actually be game breaking, if any of @Jared_Russell 's apocalyptic prophesies come to pass. That’s yet to be seen.

But FUN must be drooling over all the “HANGAR bowling” clips of the week we might get!

If you want to avoid being knocked off the rungs, remember you can get your bumper all the way above the high bar now to get yourself out of the way. :slight_smile:

1 Like

I feel like there’s a lot of negative comments here in a thread that should mostly be be people commending 2412 on a super creative solution. Perhaps the topic should be split, with a new topic about how and when people think rules should be implemented?

Congrats 2412, you’re the CD drama of the week.

We try very hard. I cannot wait for 2412 to do this in a match and have the GAs do a highlight on it.

2 Likes

If you watch here, there’s a static wide view:

I’m so confused by this post, but don’t disagree in splitting the threads.

I can’t find anyone in here attacking 2412, everyone is focused on how FIRST has historically botched rulings like this via QnA and then played it both ways (allowing 2010 469, disallowing 2012 bridge climb, 2012 under bridge, 2016 tower shot blocker, etc…). We’ve had a recent time period of 2017-2020 where we haven’t had such loopholes, but FIRST is definitely on trial now for this one.

No one is accusing 2412 of doing something illegal, and nor do they need anyone to come to vouch for their character. They were bold enough to push in an area where FIRST historically has sometimes rewarded, but often punished teams who dared to push the limits.

Exploitation of FIRST’s bad QnA answers here enable an arms race for champs that is clearly not in the spirit of the rules from kickoff day, and is really a diversionary direction for team’s programs at this point. I’m not stoked that teams now need to balance how much they want to divert funds and resources from their current champs prep, to a climb that might potentially be made illegal while they’re traveling to champs.

I think what 2412 is doing here is awesome, and team’s at large should rush into every misstep by FIRST in the QnA system and/or rules as a means of getting the program to a point where such loopholes are nonexistant and teams can just play the game.

Great work 2412, I’m stoked to see you hit this climb in PNW Elims.

5 Likes

I think the point is less that there’s negativity focused on 2412, and more that there’s a lot of negativity showing up in the post. When all of the criticism for FIRST shows up in a team’s thread it implicitly puts the fault on them for bringing it up (even if none of the people criticizing FIRST would place any fault on the team).

I feel the more thoughtful choice would be to start a new thread where the focus is exclusively on the q&a’s choice to answer as such, but of course its very relevant in this thread.

3 Likes

What’s the chance that this was an intentional side effect this year? (just the post-match overheight climb, not the rest)

FIRST (seemingly intentionally) did not make height extension an inspection item this year. Inspectors do not have to check a team’s ability to limit height extension, and are not allowed to prevent a team from playing if they are extending above the height extension limit, even if it is intentional.

I may be wrong, but I think this is not how it was done in previous years, and it appears to have been an intentional choice, from my discussions with other inspectors and volunteers.

It seems like that rule is most about the geometry and mechanics of some of the more common traversal climb mechanisms that consist of climbing hooks on some sort of pivoting arm. For some designs, the robot will be overheight with hooks fully extended and arms vertical, but will never reach that configuration in a normal match (since the hooks are only fully extended when the arms are tilted forwards or backwards).

1 Like

That is checkable in inspection, and it is checked for similarly troubled mechanisms that may extend outside the frame perimeter, but have software, driver, or other nonmechanical limits to prevent breaking the rules.

In fact, inspectors should be checking the tilted and fully extended arm, to ensure it doesn’t extend outside the 16 inch limit.

For some historical context, here’s some CD reactions to other Q&A issues. I’ll let the readers judge which of these Q&A responses ended up impacting game play or FRC robot design.

5 Likes

Sorry, I could have worded my message better. I think LukeB better communicated what my feelings were

3 Likes

This.

Also to a lesser degree, with enough time to develop on this meta, teams would try to cram as many actions post-match as possible, which makes the job VERY hard for refs judging the T+5 time - I believe this was part of the original rationale that led to T+5 rules instead of T=0.

Looks to me that 2412 has somewhat successfully completed their first after match climb here in Qual 81.

https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxFG2bm4J41bfyR2TNaDnSbKr5piFdxrUX

Two notes: they only attempted the mid rung and the climb did not count, presumably because their bumpers are not clearly off the ground. :frowning:

Fingers crossed this works by elmis, it’s way too cool to just be a hypothetical.

9 Likes

History is not on your side there :stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes:

Congratulations on creating a new addition to the rulebook.

24 Likes

Looks like team update 21 has canceled project overtime: https://firstfrc.blob.core.windows.net/frc2022/Manual/TeamUpdates/TeamUpdate21.pdf

Exploiting the lack of robot rule enforcement in the 5 second period after the match is now a yellow card level offence according to the new line F in the blue box under rule H201.

Oh well, its been fun. I look forward to seeing everyone in Houston!

15 Likes