Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Well breaks while loading/dropping at the target - score ?

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

  • The Well breaks while loading/dropping at the target - score ?

    Hi Guys,

    Question - if a mission block breaks either while loading or when dropped at the target, would I still score?
    At the qualifiers, I was told that there will be no score if the mission block gets damaged in the process. Could you please confirm?

    There is no mention of it in the challenge document either.

    Thanks,
    Shaila.

  • #2
    Originally posted by shailacdi@gmail.com View Post
    Hi Guys,

    Question - if a mission block breaks either while loading or when dropped at the target, would I still score?
    At the qualifiers, I was told that there will be no score if the mission block gets damaged in the process. Could you please confirm?

    There is no mention of it in the challenge document either.

    Thanks,
    Shaila.
    See "R17 - Field Damage".

    It says that if a mission was made easier by damaging a mission model, the referee may disallow scoring for that mission. It's a judgement call as to how this rule would be applied.
    FIRST LEGO League Mentor and Referee/Head Referee since 2011.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Tom Mosher View Post

      See "R17 - Field Damage".

      It says that if a mission was made easier by damaging a mission model, the referee may disallow scoring for that mission. It's a judgement call as to how this rule would be applied.
      The Referees are also asked to exercise "Leniency". Unfortunately, it is difficult to precisely calibrate leniency so your team should not expect to be lucky every time.

      Comment


      • #4
        Agree it is a judgement call. This is why I think it is great to have current coaches act as refs whenever possible. I knew from working with this kit for months that the well roof will break if you breath on it wrong, and it impossible to fix in a hurry. So when I was a ref and it came apart as a team loaded it, and they still delivered it to the target it 2 pieces, I gave it to them. With their delivery method the break did not make it easier.

        Comment


        • #5
          Another question about the Water Well scoring. My team is planning to place just the corner/edge of the well against the mat. The photo isn't exactly what they are planning, but it illustrates the point. They feel this will be a full score, and will be considered "completely in" per M14 and Update #10. I tend to agree, but was wondering if others agree. They plan to bring it up with the refs.
          What do you think?
          • M14 - WATER WELL Move the Water Well so it has contact with the mat and that contact is FOR PARTIAL SCORE: partly in the Water Well target. 15 Points FOR FULL SCORE: completely in the Water Well target. 25 Points
          Last edited by Blasters; 02-20-2018, 09:50 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Blasters View Post
            Another question about the Water Well scoring. My team is planning to place just the corner/edge of the well against the mat. The photo isn't exactly what they are planning, but it illustrates the point. They feel this will be a full score, and will be considered "completely in" per M14 and Update #10. I tend to agree, but was wondering if others agree. They plan to bring it up with the refs.
            What do you think?
            • M14 - WATER WELL Move the Water Well so it has contact with the mat and that contact is FOR PARTIAL SCORE: partly in the Water Well target. 15 Points FOR FULL SCORE: completely in the Water Well target. 25 Points
            I don't think Update #10 clears anything up. The confusion for this mission is from mixing COMPLETELY, CONTACT, and IN. These are special FLL words and they tend to be magnets for misunderstanding. For the well mission some think the base of the well model must completely contact the mat (all pads touching the mat), others think the well must be completely in the target area. If you read the mission description it is pretty clear that it is only the contact with the mat that must be completely in the target area. I think the well in the picture would score bonus points, but there is no guarantee that your ref will score it as not completely contacting the mat and give zero points.

            Now we only have to worry about the cargo launch people chiming in. They will tell you that in the picture the well is touching the mat outside the target area due to the transitive property. The well is contacting the 2x4 brick and the 2x4 brick is contacting the mat outside the target area, therefore the well is contacting the mat outside the target area. But according to that logic you and I are playing footsie right now (I swear we are not!)
            Last edited by Dean Hystad; 02-21-2018, 02:53 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              I say the pic above (resting on something else outside of target) - scores. Like Dean says, I think there simply must be a) contact with the mat (any little bit) and b) that contact wherever it is, must be completely in the target.

              There is no text (on that mission) that requires the mission model not be touching anything else, so a white brick, a robot, etc are fine to support it up off the mat outside the target.

              Update 10 was only trying to deal with landings that had slider contact but the well base was an overhang. It was not a well done update IMO.


              And my take here on transitive touching, is no. "...has contact with the mat..." in my mind is direct contact. Now other text and other seasons when the phrases "touching" and "in contact" can lead to some debate on transitive connections, but for me - the HD Water Well is not one of them.



              To the OP, breakage "alone" is not a automatic no-score. But sure, there is plenty of room for opinions on when to utilize R17 against a team. You can look at it from the model standpoint, and indeed the well roof was fragile. But all teams should have discovered that same fact as well - and made allowances for it. Sure, if the well gets broken in basic setup and handling, I would likely let the team score with the majority of the model. But if the robot and its solution looks to be holding the well only by its roof, and half way there it falls off, but shoves it all in - to me that looks like a team (and bot) that knew the same fragile well all season like we all did, but did little to address a proper solution for it. Context plays a big role.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Blasters View Post
                Another question about the Water Well scoring. My team is planning to place just the corner/edge of the well against the mat. The photo isn't exactly what they are planning, but it illustrates the point. They feel this will be a full score, and will be considered "completely in" per M14 and Update #10. I tend to agree, but was wondering if others agree. They plan to bring it up with the refs.
                What do you think?
                • M14 - WATER WELL Move the Water Well so it has contact with the mat and that contact is FOR PARTIAL SCORE: partly in the Water Well target. 15 Points FOR FULL SCORE: completely in the Water Well target. 25 Points
                This situation nicely illustrates why we need a clear rule about the status of transitive vs direct contact. There is no good reason why we have to keep speculating about this issue.


                FIRST LEGO League Mentor and Referee/Head Referee since 2011.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Tom Mosher View Post

                  This situation nicely illustrates why we need a clear rule about the status of transitive vs direct contact. There is no good reason why we have to keep speculating about this issue.

                  There is no need for clarification on the transitive property. There is a need for missions and rules that don't have goofy restrictions or requirements that require a clarification on the transitive property, or special underlining or punctuation.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The transitive property doesn't exist anymore. The TRANSPORTED rule D10 is quite clear.
                    The process of being Transported ends when the thing being transported is no longer in contact with whatever was transporting it.
                    All contact is direct contact, and that's why the scenario in the picture scores.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      A guy can't make a joke about the trasnitive property without a flood of transitive property replies.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by alanggreen View Post
                        The transitive property doesn't exist anymore. The TRANSPORTED rule D10 is quite clear. All contact is direct contact, and that's why the scenario in the picture scores.
                        Alan,
                        The Transporting rule does not apply to this specific question, because the scenario does not involve Transportation. It's a question about what is "In" and "Contact". How the 2x4 brick got underneath the Well is not what we're discussing.

                        I think a big reason why this "transitive contact" issue keeps coming up is because the rules are poorly organized. At the moment, the definition of "contact" is buried in the definition of Transportation. Contact is a physical state. Transportation is an action. Burying one inside the other is not helpful.

                        I think we'd have better clarity if:
                        - "Contact" is defined as a separate concept ("direct contact").
                        - Then the "Transportation" definition uses the definition of Contact, without the tangled - up language that is in D10 now.

                        Now the rest of the rules can use the concept of Contact without being tangled up with Transportation.

                        Burying the contact definition inside the Transportation rule is both confusing and misleading. It makes it difficult to tell whether Contact is only significant during Transportation.


                        FIRST LEGO League Mentor and Referee/Head Referee since 2011.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Dean Hystad View Post
                          There is no need for clarification on the transitive property. There is a need for missions and rules that don't have goofy restrictions or requirements that require a clarification on the transitive property, or special underlining or punctuation.
                          I'm with you on the punctuation and underlining. This year's rules mission rules required an English degree to understand the scoring conditions - something most 4th graders lack.
                          FIRST LEGO League Mentor and Referee/Head Referee since 2011.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Tom Mosher View Post

                            Alan,
                            The Transporting rule does not apply to this specific question, because the scenario does not involve Transportation. It's a question about what is "In" and "Contact". How the 2x4 brick got underneath the Well is not what we're discussing.

                            I think a big reason why this "transitive contact" issue keeps coming up is because the rules are poorly organized. At the moment, the definition of "contact" is buried in the definition of Transportation. Contact is a physical state. Transportation is an action. Burying one inside the other is not helpful.

                            I think we'd have better clarity if:
                            - "Contact" is defined as a separate concept ("direct contact").
                            - Then the "Transportation" definition uses the definition of Contact, without the tangled - up language that is in D10 now.

                            Now the rest of the rules can use the concept of Contact without being tangled up with Transportation.

                            Burying the contact definition inside the Transportation rule is both confusing and misleading. It makes it difficult to tell whether Contact is only significant during Transportation.

                            There is no reason for the transport rule. If an item starts in base and you interrupt the robot you get to recover the item. If the item did not start in base it remains where it comes to rest. When the transport rule was strictly enforced last year nobody was happy. With no transport rule we don't have to define contact.

                            I suppose no transport rule opens the doors to reusing strategic objects without the hassle of carrying them around. Has anyone seen this be a problem in the past?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Dean Hystad View Post

                              There is no reason for the transport rule. If an item starts in base and you interrupt the robot you get to recover the item. If the item did not start in base it remains where it comes to rest. When the transport rule was strictly enforced last year nobody was happy. With no transport rule we don't have to define contact.

                              I suppose no transport rule opens the doors to reusing strategic objects without the hassle of carrying them around. Has anyone seen this be a problem in the past?
                              Personally, I agree there are some needless restrictions and complexity in the rules. But I'm not the game designer.

                              My point is that if FIRST wants rules about these sorts of things, it would be very helpful if they were written more clearly.
                              FIRST LEGO League Mentor and Referee/Head Referee since 2011.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X