Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mission 9 clarification

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

  • Mission 9 clarification

    Does it score if the test building is supported by knocked over blue beams? Since the mission says knock over some beams, one beam would have to remain upright, I envision the building not on that beam. The wording does not specifically state that the building be supported by vertical beams, though it is implied.

  • #2
    It is not safe or to your advantage to think there is something to be implied by the current mission wording.

    Mission 9 Safety factor
    -> If the Test Building is Independent and Supported only by the blue beams, and some beams have been knocked out at least half way:
    10 Each Beam
    There is no reason to think one beam would have to remain upright. You are correct that the wording does not specifically state that the building needs to be supported by vertical beams, and it very much should not be considered implied that it should be.

    To answer your question, I think yes, if the building is supported by beams that have been knocked over, the mission will score (as long as the building is independent and supported only by the blue beams).
    Norfolk, Virginia, USA
    FLL Coach and Regional Tournament Head judge since 2014

    Comment


    • #3
      I would clarify what SkipMorrow said with the proviso that the supporting beams holding up the building cannot be resting on the hinge below it. If you look at the Rule Clarification RG11, it makes it pretty clear that "supported only" means that the support beam can't be supported by something else below it. Now if the beams are leaning but still free-standing, I think that would be OK.Screen Shot 2019-09-17 at 9.49.24 AM.png

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by EHMentor View Post
        Does it score if the test building is supported by knocked over blue beams?
        I think not. I agree with SusanMcN's analysis.
        FIRST LEGO League Mentor and Referee/Head Referee since 2011.

        Comment


        • #5
          Tom Mosher , are you saying it is not possible for the building to be independent and Supported only by the blue beams when those beams have been knocked over? Because with our practice table this is quite easy. Or are you troubled by "some" does not equal "all"?
          Norfolk, Virginia, USA
          FLL Coach and Regional Tournament Head judge since 2014

          Comment


          • #6
            Just when I thought I understood Supported Only By, SusanMcN comes along and pulls the rug out from under me.
            It didn't occur to me that a beam pushed all the way down, resting only on the mission model and there being no other equipment, would not score.
            When all beams are knocked down to the fullest amount possible, the middle beams rest on the cross beam that is part of the mission model. If I understand the post correctly, under SusanMcN's analysis, a building on these beams would not be "Supported Only By" the beams and would not score because the beams are supported by the mission model cross beams. It would be independent but, supported by the blue beam that is supported by the mission model cross beam (the book under RG11).
            I think the analysis is correct under the rules and updates but, I disagree that the update was meant to make this a non-scoring situation.

            I think that this is one of those unintended outcomes from an update that appeared to answer the question but, raised an unexpected new issue.
            Here's why, the blue upright beam is connected to the mission model via a pin that is connected to a beam, supported by dual lock. At all times, the beam is supported by the rest of the mission model below it. I don't think that a part of the existing mission model that stops a blue beam from moving is the "Supported Only By" that the update was designed to address. (only opinion here, I could be completely wrong). I think that they just wanted to be sure that there was no equipment supporting the beam.
            In addition, the mission requires that that the blue beam be at least half way down. There is no rule stating that the beam could not be all the way down. At least half way means that more than half way is ok and all the way down is ok where the beam is supported by the mat. I just don't think that they would build a mission model where the beam can rest on a part of the model or the mat and make that a non-scoring situation without putting that in the original mission description. "more than half way down and not supported by any other part of the mission model or mat."

            I'm interested to see where this goes.

            FLL coach Trash Trek on, State 4x, World 2x, ref, judge advisor.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by SkipMorrow View Post
              Tom Mosher , are you saying it is not possible for the building to be independent and Supported only by the blue beams when those beams have been knocked over? Because with our practice table this is quite easy. Or are you troubled by "some" does not equal "all"?
              Here's the situation as I understand it at the moment. Note that a further official update could arrive at any time, and I hope that it does.

              The issue is with regard to what is supporting the blue beams that are in contact with the Test Building.

              There are six blue beams:
              • When the middle two are folded down, they are in contact with (supported by) some cross-member of the model's base.
              • The outside four beams can fold down and contact the table itself, without contacting the model base other than through their hinge pins.
              Clearly, regarding the middle two beams, they're covered by RG11 - the water represents the Test Building, the blue beams represent the cup, and the model's base structure represents the book. So if the building is resting on the two middle beams and they're in contact with the model base, RG11 says those beams will not be counted in scoring.

              The four outside beams are a more difficult call, because some of them might be in contact with both the Test Building and the mat (not the model base). RG11 doesn't address this situation. And I think it is reading too much into the rules to start applying arguments like "the axle pins that hold the blue beams are in contact with the model, which is in contact with the table, so everything is supported by everything". That way lies madness, and I don't think the writers of this mission rule intended to invoke a complicated logical argument.

              Hopefully an update is on the way.


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

              Comment


              • #8
                I suspect what the RG11 meant to accomplish was preventing teams from using extra equipment to prop up the blue beams, such that the beams are knocked over at least halfway but the building is still resting on them. But that's just my opinion.

                The mission seems pretty simple on its face. The building originally has six supports. But three are sufficient to create a stable tripod. So it should be possible to knock three out and leave the building standing. The "Independent" and "Supported only by" clauses means that the team can't prop up the building or the blue supports.
                Last edited by Tom Mosher; 09-17-2019, 12:59 PM.
                FIRST LEGO League Mentor and Referee/Head Referee since 2011.

                Comment


                • #9
                  The Water/Book example is interesting. There was probably a lot of thought given to that example and it was probably agreed upon by multiple people, and I don't see how it helps clear up anything. A beam held up by friction and a pin is unsupported, but a beam resting against another part of the same model is supported? The pin is somehow different than other parts of the model?

                  Even without reductio ad absurdum I think the game update needs an update.
                  Last edited by Dean Hystad; 09-17-2019, 01:02 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Dean Hystad View Post
                    The Water/Book example is interesting. There was probably a lot of thought given to that example and it was probably agreed upon by multiple people, and I don't see how it helps clear up anything.
                    I agree, it was the most evasive answer they could come up with to some specific question.
                    FIRST LEGO League Mentor and Referee/Head Referee since 2011.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      It is very hard to discuss RG11 and Rule 34, Supported, without accidentally using words that might not have their conventional meaning.

                      Here's what I do to try and keep things straight:
                      If I say, "A is Supported by B" or "B is Supporting A" or "B Supports A", then I mean the Rule 34 definition, that 100% of A's weight is held up by B, and kept from falling.
                      If I say "C gives support to A", or "C provides support to A" or "A gets support from C" then I mean that C is holding up some fraction of A's weight (and keeping it from falling.)

                      So let's look at this statement:
                      "supported only" means that the support beam can't be supported by something else below it.
                      I agree that this is true:
                      "Supported only" means that a Supporting beam can't be Supported by something else below it. <-- these all refer to 100% of the weight

                      But these aren't necessarily true:
                      "Supported only" means that a beam providing support can't be Supported by something else below it.
                      "Supported only" means that a beam providing support can't get support from something else below it.
                      "Supported only" means that a Supporting beam can't get support from something else below it.

                      I could construct examples talking about Blue Beams touching the mat, and connecting pins and angles for Beams, and force decompositions, but it's way beyond the scope of what we do in FLL.


                      I agree that we shouldn't treat pins differently than the rest of the model, and I take that to a comfortable extreme. In Mission 9, for example, the Mission Model that is the base that holds up the Test Building is the entire object with gray pieces connected to the mat, the connecting pins and the Blue Beams. If one part of that base is Supporting the Test Building, then the whole base is Supporting the Test Building, and I don't worry too much about whether one subsection is Supporting another subsection, because it's all one object to me.

                      In RG11, you might say that the top cover of the book is supporting the cup, and the bottom cover of the book is supporting the rest of the book, but we should treat the book as a single thing, and not a collection of book pieces. As Tom said, otherwise that way lies madness...
                      Steve Scherr
                      Referee and Judge, Virginia-DC, Maryland, and Ohio
                      FLL Global Head Referee

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I don't think the writers of this mission rule intended to invoke a complicated logical argument.
                        Hard to disagree with this sentiment, but, invoke they did. I had a 6th grade veteran FLLer, 9th grade veteran FTCer, and an 11th grade student with a passion for logic in a heated discussion last night. When the smoke settled, they all agreed that the RG11 update can only be validly interpreted in a way that makes clear, at least in a gravity well, that there is nothing, anywhere, that is "supported only by" anything. Thus, while it seems highly likely that
                        what the RG11 meant to accomplish was preventing teams from using extra equipment to prop up the blue beams
                        there is now a clear contradiction. With this update, logic seems to dictate that there is no successful scoring condition whatsoever for this mission. This update desperately needs an update.
                        Last edited by devin_breise; 09-20-2019, 11:30 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Note that as of 7 October 2019, Update RG11 has been removed.
                          FIRST LEGO League Mentor and Referee/Head Referee since 2011.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by EHMentor View Post
                            The wording does not specifically state that the building be supported by vertical beams...
                            Now that RG11 is gone, I guess we go back to the original text of M09.

                            Mission 9 Safety factor If the Test Building is Independent and Supported only by the blue beams, and some beams have been knocked out at least half way: 10 Each Beam
                            It simply says "Each Beam" but we take that to mean "each beam which has been knocked out at least half way". If that's the case then the problem with a building supported by non-vertical beams is that only "knocked out" beams score points. If the robot laid all beams sideways and then set the building atop two of the beams as they lay horizontal, then yes, the building is supported by beams but those beams are not "knocked out" anymore. It seems like no beams which support the building can score point regardless of whether they are vertical or horizontal since by definition(?), support beams can't be "knocked out" beams.

                            The beams might have been knocked out at one point during the match, but the scoring condition is what's visible at the end of the match. If the text had said "knocked over" instead of "knocked out" then I think one could make the case that a "knocked over" beam could still support something. However, the word, "out" seems pretty clear that the beam must be out from under the building.

                            Does anybody think that a beam can simultaneously be supporting the building and also be "knocked out"?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by WilliamFrantz View Post
                              Does anybody think that a beam can simultaneously be supporting the building and also be "knocked out"?
                              I think it is possible for the building to be supported only by blue beams that have been knocked out.

                              I think the way the sentence is written, they clarify "knocked out" with "at least half way". If it is at least half way out, then it scores, assuming the building is resting only on blue beams (doesn't matter if those blue beams are knocked out or not).

                              By the way, what exactly does "knocked out at least half way" mean? I hadn't thought of it until now, but we have been thinking it means at least a 45 deg angle (from vertical). But I am not so sure that is correct. Could it mean knocked out of the socket on the bottom of the building by at least half way? When the mission is set up, the are fully "in". If you tilt a beam enough, it will be fully out. Knocked out half way would be somewhere in between. I know mission models and real life don't always align, but if I was removing vertical supports for something in real life, once it is out of contact with what it is supporting, it is fully knocked out, which says nothing about the angle of the support.
                              Norfolk, Virginia, USA
                              FLL Coach and Regional Tournament Head judge since 2014

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X