Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Does robot need to be in Safety at match end?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Does robot need to be in Safety at match end?

    The non attached equipment issue seems to rest on the definition of "combined" ala D10. The prevailing interpretation here seems to be that "combined" is roughly analogous to "attached" but I'm not certain on that. When I saw the new robot definition and the fact that "strategic objects" no longer exist my thought was that all equipment that moves with the robot is part of the robot until and unless it is stranded.

    I don't have any firm support for that position beyond that if I have a bowl of apples and a bowl of oranges and I tip them both into a single larger bowl I think I have "combined" the two sets of fruit.
    Team members and coaches in North Carolina, direct your rules questions to referee@nc-fll.com

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Does robot need to be in Safety at match end?

      Originally posted by Tom Mosher View Post
      I'm not sure how the logical state of being "non-attached equipment" and "being transported by the robot" can occur.
      The same way that Models can be transported by the robot without being attached. If a team builds a piece of equipment to use for something & puts it on the field outside of Safety (which is clearly allowed even if you're not in the "we can leave it for a later restart" camp), while the robot is moving it out of base I submit it's being transported, but not attached.

      Originally posted by Tom Mosher View Post
      If the robot launches from Base and sets free some independent equipment, it's no longer "something the robot was transporting", so R14 doesn't apply.
      I disagree; "sets free" sounds exactly like "loses contact" (from R14). And R14 has a section telling what to do for Equipment under this condition.

      Originally posted by Tom Mosher View Post
      Moving Equipment "completely into Safety" happens immediately upon the Equipment being "stranded", without regard to the robot being Interrupted. Interrupting the robot only impacts Models it was carrying, under R13.
      Exactly. I think there needs to be something under R13 for Equipment that the robot has not lost contact with when the robot is Interrupted. If outside Safety is it left where it is or returned with the robot? Does it generate a junk penalty if straddling the Safety line, or does the robot touch penalty include that?

      Originally posted by SamLast View Post
      The non attached equipment issue seems to rest on the definition of "combined" ala D10. The prevailing interpretation here seems to be that "combined" is roughly analogous to "attached" but I'm not certain on that. When I saw the new robot definition and the fact that "strategic objects" no longer exist my thought was that all equipment that moves with the robot is part of the robot until and unless it is stranded.
      There may not be "strategic objects" defined but since out-of-Safety storage of objects has to be "...completely non-strategic." (R11) I submit that we still have objects that can be used strategically. However, you may have found the solution. "Combined" is used both in D08 for Models & D10 for the Robot. "Combined" is clearly meant to include "touching", so transporting via pushing is a state of combination. And since the equipment in this case is part of the robot by definition, R14 may not need an update. By this definition, though, a team would be forced to bring back its equipment-being-transported back to Safety if they interrupt the robotn before stranding it.

      It would be nice to not have to go through so many mental gymnastics to get to this conclusion.
      Kansas City Region Head Ref 2014-present
      KC Region coaches and teams can ask FLL robot game rules questions at kcfllref@gmail.com

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Does robot need to be in Safety at match end?

        Originally posted by someonewhobikes View Post
        By this definition, though, a team would be forced to bring back its equipment-being-transported back to Safety if they interrupt the robotn before stranding it.
        That is consistent with previous seasons, I think. The cargo and cargo penalty rules had the same "if the robot had it when it left base and has still got it when you touch it you bring it back to base" result.

        Originally posted by someonewhobikes View Post
        I disagree; "sets free" sounds exactly like "loses contact" (from R14). And R14 has a section telling what to do for Equipment under this condition.
        "Sets free" is not the wording at issue here. "Transporting" is. If your definition of "transporting" is more stringent than "purposeful motion caused by the robot" then independent equipment was never transported in the first place so losing contact with it doesn't trigger R14.

        On the "common" definition of "transported": Think about (or possibly ask someone not FLL related) whether a person releasing a ball to roll down a slope is "transporting" that ball. The person (and the robot in Tom's example) did not provide either momentum or direction to the object in question.
        Last edited by SamLast; 09-29-2015, 10:37 PM.
        Team members and coaches in North Carolina, direct your rules questions to referee@nc-fll.com

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Does robot need to be in Safety at match end?

          Originally posted by SamLast View Post
          That is consistent with previous seasons, I think. The cargo and cargo penalty rules had the same "if the robot had it when it left base and has still got it when you touch it you bring it back to base" result.
          Except that previous seasons included both mission models and equipment in the same definition of Cargo. From World Class: Cargo is any strategic object or mission model the robot has with it for transport or release. Objects in accidental contact, objects fully released, and objects “all done being pushed” are not cargo. This year's rules seem to be treating them as separate types of things, so the lack of definition for Equipment in some cases is noticable. Note that the World Class definition of Cargo makes our "transporting" issue much simpler, too.

          Originally posted by SamLast View Post
          "Sets free" is not the wording at issue here. "Transporting" is.
          No, "sets free" is the issue for that part of my previous post - I was specifically responding to a statement of Tom's about the applicability of R14, nothing more.

          Originally posted by SamLast View Post
          If your definition of "transporting" is more stringent than "purposeful motion caused by the robot" then independent equipment was never transported in the first place so losing contact with it doesn't trigger R14.
          I don't see how you come to that conclusion. Under what definition of Transport could the Robot moving Equipment from Base to somewhere else on the Field NOT be transportation?

          I started part of this mess to try and figure out if there's a LESS stringent case whereby a robot running into something is not transportation, thereby allowing (in one example) the building to be knocked down without having to immediately invoke R14 on the pieces. That's since expanded to trying to figure out the R13 consequences for Equipment being transported by a robot when it is Interrupted.
          Kansas City Region Head Ref 2014-present
          KC Region coaches and teams can ask FLL robot game rules questions at kcfllref@gmail.com

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Does robot need to be in Safety at match end?

            Originally posted by someonewhobikes View Post
            Except that previous seasons included both mission models and equipment in the same definition of Cargo. From World Class: Cargo is any strategic object or mission model the robot has with it for transport or release. Objects in accidental contact, objects fully released, and objects “all done being pushed” are not cargo. This year's rules seem to be treating them as separate types of things, so the lack of definition for Equipment in some cases is noticable. Note that the World Class definition of Cargo makes our "transporting" issue much simpler, too.
            I agree that the definitions seemed neater in this context last season. However, I don't think the upshot of the rules in the case of an interrupted robot with what used to be called strategic objects as what used to be called cargo has changed.

            No, "sets free" is the issue for that part of my previous post - I was specifically responding to a statement of Tom's about the applicability of R14, nothing more.
            Rereading Tom's statement, he does imply that the robot would have been transporting the independent equipment and then have stopped transporting it, in which case I would agree with you.

            However, I would contend that Tom is mistaken there and that, under the definition of "transported" he talks about earlier in his post, the robot would not be transporting the equipment in the first place. In the situation in question both the robot and the equipment would be stationary, having not yet begun to move. How can the robot be "transporting" a piece of equipment if it never moves while they are touching?

            I don't see how you come to that conclusion. Under what definition of Transport could the Robot moving Equipment from Base to somewhere else on the Field NOT be transportation?
            My contention is that the robot is not doing the moving. The equipment is doing the moving, the robot merely allows it to begin that movement. As I said, the robot does not provide the equipment with either momentum or direction. At no point is it "carrying" or "conveying" the equipment (both terms that come up in dictionary definitions of "transporting") and for the "common" definition, I would not say that, if I wind up a clockwork toy and let it go, I have "transported" it to wherever it ends up.

            I started part of this mess to try and figure out if there's a LESS stringent case whereby a robot running into something is not transportation, thereby allowing (in one example) the building to be knocked down without having to immediately invoke R14 on the pieces. That's since expanded to trying to figure out the R13 consequences for Equipment being transported by a robot when it is Interrupted.
            It also seems to have expanded to whether self propelled "independent equipment" (eg. a rubber band powered pull back car) released by the robot is ever "transported" and thus whether it is subject to R14 and the junk penalty.

            On the first two points, I agree with you. Knocking over the building without intent to convey the pieces to safety is not "transporting" the pieces and equipment transported by the robot is considered combined with the robot and so returned to base when the robot is interrupted.
            Team members and coaches in North Carolina, direct your rules questions to referee@nc-fll.com

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Does robot need to be in Safety at match end?

              Rereading Tom's statement, he does imply that the robot would have been transporting the independent equipment and then have stopped transporting it, in which case I would agree with you.
              That's not what I meant. I was referring to an independently powered device (a legal wind-up device, a gravity-powered device, etc) that is released from Base when the robot is launched. The device may have been held back or restrained by the robot, but was never transported by the robot. R14 does not apply in that case.

              Equipment that is part of the robot under D10 ("currently combined with it"), that is covered by R14.
              Last edited by Tom Mosher; 09-30-2015, 04:15 PM.
              FIRST LEGO League Mentor and Referee/Head Referee since 2011.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Does robot need to be in Safety at match end?

                Originally posted by Tom Mosher View Post
                That's not what I meant. I was referring to an independently powered device (a legal wind-up device, a gravity-powered device, etc) that is released from Base when the robot is launched. The device may have been held back or restrained by the robot, but was never transported by the robot. R14 does not apply in that case.

                Equipment that is part of the robot under D10 ("currently combined with it"), that is covered by R14.
                Right. That was what I thought you meant. In retrospect I regret speculating that you were mistaken, I should have said "misspoke" or "mistyped" or similar. Sorry about that. In any event I think we agree on how the rules as written treat self propelled equipment.
                Team members and coaches in North Carolina, direct your rules questions to referee@nc-fll.com

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Does robot need to be in Safety at match end?

                  Nothing concrete (and more vague this year than in season's past), but in an exchange I had with Scott, he did indicate that devices that were launched from base WERE subject to R14 junk. Meaning at the time of that writing, he viewed "transporting" with a generous definition to mean that the robot caused or invoked movement of the device. Meaning gravity-fed and other stored energy equipment, triggered by the bot, that ended up partly in safety and were separated from the robot - would incur the R14 junk penalty and have to be picked up at that moment.

                  I know we have lots of discussion here about the words, but at the time I was expecting an update to somehow summarize that anything landing straddling or outside the safety arc, can only arrive there legally by robot action. Whether that is defined as transporting or triggering or causing, etc. Stored items by hand and items accidently moved by hand out of base - are treated separately and are considered non-events for the sake of any game/mission.

                  But no such update has appeared and to us few, there seems to be some wording holes in R12/R14. Much time has passed (IMO) since the last update, so I too am curious how much will be changed now that teams have chewed on the existing words this long.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Does robot need to be in Safety at match end?

                    Originally posted by dna1990 View Post
                    Nothing concrete (and more vague this year than in season's past), but in an exchange I had with Scott, he did indicate that devices that were launched from base WERE subject to R14 junk. Meaning at the time of that writing, he viewed "transporting" with a generous definition to mean that the robot caused or invoked movement of the device. Meaning gravity-fed and other stored energy equipment, triggered by the bot, that ended up partly in safety and were separated from the robot - would incur the R14 junk penalty and have to be picked up at that moment.

                    I know we have lots of discussion here about the words, but at the time I was expecting an update to somehow summarize that anything landing straddling or outside the safety arc, can only arrive there legally by robot action. Whether that is defined as transporting or triggering or causing, etc. Stored items by hand and items accidently moved by hand out of base - are treated separately and are considered non-events for the sake of any game/mission.

                    But no such update has appeared and to us few, there seems to be some wording holes in R12/R14. Much time has passed (IMO) since the last update, so I too am curious how much will be changed now that teams have chewed on the existing words this long.
                    I would be shocked if Scott didn't intend the junk penalty to apply to self propelled equipment. That would be an odd loophole to leave deliberately and Scott has said previously that he dislikes that kind of solution.

                    However, barring an update, I do think the rules contain that loophole based on the GP2 direction to use the "common/dictionary" definition of words not explicitly defined.

                    It would be good to have a clear and concise update on some or all of the R12/14 issues. If/when we get an update I hope it is that kind.
                    Team members and coaches in North Carolina, direct your rules questions to referee@nc-fll.com

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Does robot need to be in Safety at match end?

                      Originally posted by dna1990 View Post
                      Nothing concrete (and more vague this year than in season's past), but in an exchange I had with Scott, he did indicate that devices that were launched from base WERE subject to R14 junk. Meaning at the time of that writing, he viewed "transporting" with a generous definition to mean that the robot caused or invoked movement of the device. Meaning gravity-fed and other stored energy equipment, triggered by the bot, that ended up partly in safety and were separated from the robot - would incur the R14 junk penalty and have to be picked up at that moment.
                      Since that's not how R14 is actually written, (even if you use the common sense or dictionary definition) it's a clear case for needing an update.

                      It is getting awfully late for any game-strategy-changing rulings, though. So I would not be surprised if the update didn't provide for the most permissible interpretation.
                      FIRST LEGO League Mentor and Referee/Head Referee since 2011.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X