Please clarify how scoring is done if a robot hangs with a game element.
hanging robot with game elements scoring
This has been clarified multiple times, so in the future please try to use the Forum search bar in the right column of Vex forum. This helps to keep the forum clean and simple. Thanks.
Basically the game element is scored as if it was in the far zone, meaning that a “hanging” star is 2 points, and a “hanging” cube is 4, like normal. No additional points are awarded, and no points are descored from the other team.
That’s where I start to think that a star should be counted in the area the star is hovering hover rule should be considered rather than where the wheels on the robot is touching. Because since the wheels of the robot isn’t touching anything probably, this SHOULD be counted as neutral rather than a far zone…
But the robot is supported by the hanging pole, supported by far zone tiles.
But since it’s supported by the hanging pole, then the robot is touching the hanging pole, so it is considered “On the hanging pole” instead of “On the Far Zone”.
“The Hanging Bars are not part of either Far Zone”
Thus, this rule indirectly states that the objects on the robot while hanging is neutral, so either the manual is wrong or the clarifiers are wrong…
This was the exact reason why I questioned the objects held by a robot in a zone here: https://vexforum.com/t/answered-clarification-on-pinning/17942/1
If they chose to make changes due to this:
If they change the hanging pole to be neutral, then if the object falls off the field when held by a robot, it shouldn’t be placed into the far zone mainly because of the fact that the star wouldn’t be “Where it came from” because the star has went from falling out of the field as neutral into the far zone which is 2 points.
If they changed the hanging pole to be part of the far zone, we have to realize that the pole is both supported by the far zone and the perimeter at the same time so the pole doesn’t tip over…
That’s where I think they should make it so wherever the object is hovering over is where the zone would be counted. And so… Also the definition of zone should be “inner edges of the playing field walls and the designated tape lines on the foam field tiles, that creates a zone that is in an area that extends infinitely upwards.”
The robot is touching only the hanging bar when the hanging bar is considered neutral means that the robot shouldn’t be considered on the far zone. So if it isn’t in the far zone, then it is either in the neutral zone or near zone. And the robot isn’t even close to the near zone so it is assumed that the robot would be considered in the neutral zone. And since the robot is holding an object which isn’t touching any zones except the robot, then the object would be considered neutral because the robot would then be considered neutral due to the logic of the hanging pole being neutral. Karthik never clarified the reasons why it is in the far zone in those posts…
Plus, here shown
states that the scoring object is to be in the far zone but it never gives a reason why. The hanging bar is neutral due to the far zone definition saying that the hanging bar is not from either far zone. So this quote basically makes no sense whatsoever…
In conclusion, I believe that the starstruck manual is partially illogical, as the clarifiers who could be considered wrong or right with those answers is unknown…
My logic for this is that the fence is entirely within the neutral zone, so objects supported by it are neutral. Robots entirely in the near zone are entirely within the near zone, so objects supported by these robots are near scored. The hanging pole is entirely within the far zone, and thus objects supported by it are far scored.
Robots are not considered to be part of any zone, but objects supported by them are still scored. In fact, just because hanging poles are not part of the far zone does not mean they are part of any other zone.
I believe that the note in the far zone definition was to prevent objects from being thrown at the bar, bouncing out of the field, and then being returned to the far zone with the pole.
The robot is certainly physically closer to the far zone than the near zone or neutral zone, unless you have a very impressive high hang mechanism.
The far zone is more physically adjacent to the pole than any other zone. Just because the pole is not part of the far zone does not mean that it is no longer adjacent to the far zone.
I know, but the far zone area was excluded by:
So the closest one other than the far zone is the near zone, but the robot isn’t even close to touching the near zone compared to the far zone. So it would be best to be considered in the near zone, but most will assume it’s in neutral since the hanging poles’ zone is undefined, and the definition of neutral is not in any zone.
I understand what you’re saying… I know what you are talking about since it is best guessed to be in the far zone, but logically the robot and the hanging pole isn’t really in any zone, and so is the object.
EDIT//: So the best way to solve this issue is by saying wherever the object is hovering over or closest to is the solution to ALL issues, and they could just easily remove the rule of where the robot is touching when holding an object.
If you consider that the object is “leaving the field” when the robot hangs, it is scored in the zone where it last touched the field. Would that help rationalize the Q&A responses?
Neither are objects supported by robots.
Plus, it is explicitly stated in the manual (Definition of Scored 2b, too lazy to properly copy/paste because I use firefox) that objects supported by hanging robots are far scored, so regardless of the logic, that is the ruling.
But then there would be fights over “hovering”. And what if I had a dumper, but just held the objects over the fence? That can’t be defended against in any way.
If you scroll up, I quoted it and explained why it is illogical
I understand and I explained that the ruling is illogical. That’s the main purpose of what I’m saying…
So no matter what you will be having to do defensive strategies if the rule is changed or not.
EDIT//:And anyways, that’s not the best strategy to do because you won’t be able to score more points other than that one…
So if an object came from the near zone then moved to the neutral zone, it is considered near zone still?
But to be honest, that would be the best argument… They could just say that if the robot is hanging while holding an object, then the object is leaving the field so it must be removed from the robot and into the far zone.
Or they could just say that the zones would extend vertically to the fence
But yeah… I’ll just agree that it’s the rules and I should just follow it.
As someone who refereed yesterday, I like how it is currently. Otherwise, it would be a pain to score. What if a star is right on the edge between zones, and 3 feet in the air? It’s not easy to imagine a 3-foot-tall plane perpendicular to the ground while scoring. That leaves too much room for interpretation.
That’s a good point… Yea I kind of understand why they made it like that instead of where the star is hovering over. That makes sense now