Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Question on M04 Bench

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

  • Tom Mosher
    replied
    Originally posted by Johan View Post
    The team I am working with have the same question... Has there come any clarity with this issue.
    Some of the arguments are:
    1) "space" is not very ambiguous: as "FLL-Challenge-RGR-Final.pdf" and "RePLAY-Scoresheet-for-Class-Pack-with-scores-2-pages.pdf" specifically in section "M04", bullet 2 of both "each space" is referring clearly referring to "hopscotch spaces" as no mention at all is made to the holes/frames in the bench which allow access to the "hopscotch spaces".
    2) Through out "FLL-Challenge-RGR-Final.pdf" the term "space" is used in reference to "home" and "launch area", which are both defined by lines on the mat and the limits of the table, as opposed to frames created by equipment. "R10" states that at least in relation to determining if something is "completely in" an area, that, "Drawn lines that form an area are part of that area." Rule "R23" specifically states that "If a word is not defined in the detailed game text, use its common conversational meaning." The common conversational meaning of "hopscotch space" is one of several (often numbered) areas into which one must hop when playing the game Hopscotch and it is defined by lines on the playing surface. As such, the "hopscotch spaces" are defined by the lines on the mat.
    3) In mission "M08", one gets points for "cubes completely in your frame or target". The term "frame" is specifically used and is defined by the frame created by the equipment. If it was intended that mission "M04" was to be scored bases upon cubes within the frame created by the bench if would have used that term rather than "hopscotch spaces" with no mention of the term "frame".
    4) "R23" specifically states that, "If a detail is not mentioned, it does not matter." and as mentioned no where in the rules is there any mention of the holes/frames in the bench which allow access to the "hopscotch spaces" and in purple text that rule cautions us "against reading requirements that are not there".
    5) The simple fact that "RePLAY-Scoresheet-for-scoring-software-without-scores-1-page.pdf" only shows "0 1 2 3 4" as the possible number of "hopscotch spaces with cubes touching the mat inside them" may cause some confusion, but "R24" clearly states that "Among all Robot Game information sources, the most recent Robot Game updates have highest authority, followed by the missions, the competition rules, and then the field setup." The score sheets are not even mentioned as a source of "authority".
    6) Even though the 2nd and 3rd scoring pictures in "FLL-Challenge-RGR-Final.pdf", mission "M04" show single cubes apparently "touching" both (2) "hopscotch spaces" within the one of the opening in the fallen bench and apparently only getting 10 points rather than 20 points for the position of the cube; "R24" clearly states that, "Within any one information source, text has authority over pictures."
    7) Although, the above mentioned scoring sheet and pictures create some confusion, "R25" clearly states that, "R25 tells the referee how to rule in confusing or hard-to-tell situations. If the referee’s decision “could go either way,” [...] you get the benefit of the doubt."

    Because it takes design time to try to get a cube on each "hopscotch space" (2 cubes in each opening/frame of the bench), why should a team have to rely upon a "risk assessment" during design time and post competition determination rather than clarification during design time prior to the competition.
    An official Robot Game Update has been published recently, which may answer some of these questions.

    Leave a comment:


  • someonewhobikes
    replied
    Originally posted by Johan View Post
    Because it takes design time to try to get a cube on each "hopscotch space" (2 cubes in each opening/frame of the bench), why should a team have to rely upon a "risk assessment" during design time and post competition determination rather than clarification during design time prior to the competition.
    Even where the rules are 100% clear the team should still perform risk assessments:
    * How reliable is this mission -- should we spend time improving it, or work on additional missions?
    * When should we run the mission? What possible negative effects might it have on other, completed, missions?
    * etc
    Cost/benefit and risk analysis is part of engineering.

    If you and your team are concerned about a rule interpretation, contact your regional head ref as soon as you determine there may be an issue. Note that since the kids are supposed to do all tournament-related work, you may get a better response if the kids are asking the question & providing the evidence to support their interpretation. You'll probably also get better response if they frame it as "We think this situation will be ruled in this way, and these are the rules that support our position." as opposed to asking "what does this mean?"

    Leave a comment:


  • Johan
    replied
    The team I am working with have the same question... Has there come any clarity with this issue.
    Some of the arguments are:
    1) "space" is not very ambiguous: as "FLL-Challenge-RGR-Final.pdf" and "RePLAY-Scoresheet-for-Class-Pack-with-scores-2-pages.pdf" specifically in section "M04", bullet 2 of both "each space" is referring clearly referring to "hopscotch spaces" as no mention at all is made to the holes/frames in the bench which allow access to the "hopscotch spaces".
    2) Through out "FLL-Challenge-RGR-Final.pdf" the term "space" is used in reference to "home" and "launch area", which are both defined by lines on the mat and the limits of the table, as opposed to frames created by equipment. "R10" states that at least in relation to determining if something is "completely in" an area, that, "Drawn lines that form an area are part of that area." Rule "R23" specifically states that "If a word is not defined in the detailed game text, use its common conversational meaning." The common conversational meaning of "hopscotch space" is one of several (often numbered) areas into which one must hop when playing the game Hopscotch and it is defined by lines on the playing surface. As such, the "hopscotch spaces" are defined by the lines on the mat.
    3) In mission "M08", one gets points for "cubes completely in your frame or target". The term "frame" is specifically used and is defined by the frame created by the equipment. If it was intended that mission "M04" was to be scored bases upon cubes within the frame created by the bench if would have used that term rather than "hopscotch spaces" with no mention of the term "frame".
    4) "R23" specifically states that, "If a detail is not mentioned, it does not matter." and as mentioned no where in the rules is there any mention of the holes/frames in the bench which allow access to the "hopscotch spaces" and in purple text that rule cautions us "against reading requirements that are not there".
    5) The simple fact that "RePLAY-Scoresheet-for-scoring-software-without-scores-1-page.pdf" only shows "0 1 2 3 4" as the possible number of "hopscotch spaces with cubes touching the mat inside them" may cause some confusion, but "R24" clearly states that "Among all Robot Game information sources, the most recent Robot Game updates have highest authority, followed by the missions, the competition rules, and then the field setup." The score sheets are not even mentioned as a source of "authority".
    6) Even though the 2nd and 3rd scoring pictures in "FLL-Challenge-RGR-Final.pdf", mission "M04" show single cubes apparently "touching" both (2) "hopscotch spaces" within the one of the opening in the fallen bench and apparently only getting 10 points rather than 20 points for the position of the cube; "R24" clearly states that, "Within any one information source, text has authority over pictures."
    7) Although, the above mentioned scoring sheet and pictures create some confusion, "R25" clearly states that, "R25 tells the referee how to rule in confusing or hard-to-tell situations. If the referee’s decision “could go either way,” [...] you get the benefit of the doubt."

    Because it takes design time to try to get a cube on each "hopscotch space" (2 cubes in each opening/frame of the bench), why should a team have to rely upon a "risk assessment" during design time and post competition determination rather than clarification during design time prior to the competition.
    Last edited by Johan; 10-14-2020, 05:00 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • philso
    replied
    Originally posted by dna1990 View Post
    But I can also say that when I go to input that into the scoring software, it will max me out at four.
    Even if your team is able to convince the Head Ref that they should be allowed to score more than 4 cubes in those spaces, someone would need to find a way to over-ride the scoring software.

    One of the important lessons that teams have the opportunity to learn is:

    "You got to know when to hold 'em
    Know when to fold 'em
    Know when to walk away"
    Kenny Rogers

    Leave a comment:


  • someonewhobikes
    replied
    When a word isn't defined R23 tells us how to proceed. However, I agree with you that "space" is ambiguous in this case, so that's not helping. I think dna1990 laid it out very well; this is a risk/reward calculation that your kids will have to perform & decide how to proceed. They'll need to be well-prepared to explain -- without help from a coach -- to a ref (and possibly the tournament's head ref) why they're correct; at least well enough to invoke R25.

    This might be worth an email to the email address given on the Challenge Resources page, and/or an email to your regional head ref. Of course, per R24 any reply you get back from the FIRST address doesn't count as definitive unless it generates an update; that's the reason asking your head ref about this is a good idea. Without knowing anything about your regional head ref, I can't tell you how to proceed, but I will say that I very much enjoy emails like this written by the team as opposed to by the coach, regardless of who actually sends the email.

    Leave a comment:


  • dna1990
    replied
    Welcome. Good question. I think a well-prepared team could point to the text that says hopscotch spaces and make be believe that hopscotch spaces are indeed the chalk outlines. But I can also say that when I go to input that into the scoring software, it will max me out at four. The third photo that shows 10 + 30 + 15 really makes it very likely, they meant the space creating by the LEGO frame, but I like this line of questioning. The text always takes precedence. And any photos simple show "some" of the scoring examples, unless explicitly refereed to by the text.

    I would also be quite prepared for many refs to stick to the examples at hand. So a great opportunity for the team to do some risk assessment and decide where their cubes are best deployed and how likely a ref will agree. If they go for it, be ready to graciously accept a no.

    Leave a comment:


  • dcvafll_1
    started a topic Question on M04 Bench

    Question on M04 Bench

    According to the Robot Game Rules Book on page 11:

    "If the bench is down flat and there are cubes touching the mat in hopscotch spaces: 10 each space"

    While the pictures below with examples show one cube in each framed section, you can actually fit 2 cubes in that section. So my team's question was is a "space" defined as the chalk outline of the hopscotch game (of which there are two per framed section) or is it the framed section of lego? "Space" is specifically underlined but not defined anywhere.

    In the third picture, you have the middle block touching two spaces but it is only given credit for 1 space which made them think a "space" is the frame outlne and not the hopscotch chalk line on the mat.

    Would be interested in a referee's thoughts on this. Thanks.


Working...
X