Whoops - Please delete - The thread needs to be in the Q&A
Who places their machines on the field first?
It’s in the rulebooks.
In elimination rounds, the blue alliance will always put their robots before the red alliance.
However, a less known fact is that in qualifications, it is the red alliance that puts their robot down first.
Since we are on the topic, during the elimination round, does the higher ranking get the color blue so they get to place their robot second?
Can you quote the specific rule? Honestly I just read through the manual and I can’t find it.
If I remember correctly, In qualifications, the Red alliance places their robots first, but in the final, the LOWER SEEDED alliance places their robots first.
Thanks for all the attempts to help out; but… once again I find that the horribily rude Corpralchee is spot on with his advice.
I offer a free beverage to the person that cites a specific rule (give the rule ID, the page and paragraph, etc.). contained in the current release of the VRC rules.
I’m feeling pretty cocky about this bet because I was on the phone yesterday with an IFI rep and he agreed that the current rules don’t contain a guideline or requirement. However, I will gladly pay up if he and I are mistaken.
We called IFI because of the very high importance of refs (and everyone else - hint, hint …) NOT making up rules that don’t exist (this is a friendly reminder, not a flame - OK?).
At the Lab Rats tournament, the refs agreed to follow what we recalled has been the FTC approach.
*]In the Quals, if anyone on the Red alliance asks to place second, then Blue places first.
*]In the Eliminations, if anyone on the Highest ranked alliance (regradless of color) asks to place second, then the lower ranked alliance must place their bots first.
Let’s all see what shows up the in the offficial Q&A answer.
PS: If you form a habit of citing rules as specifically as possible now, during VRC, it will probably serve you very well in your career. Why? - Because it will help you and your colleagues to stay focused on what contracts, specs, instructions, customer requests, laws, regulations, etc. actually say; not what folks interpret them to say. The notions of “common knowledge” and “community wisdom” have their place; but nothing beats citing an original, authoritative source.
I completely agree in the correct context. I love the IEEE 1149.1 spec, because it is all numbered rules and permissions. I am often asked at work “Is X legal?” If I say “no”, they hassle me. If I tell them "X is specifically not allowed by rule 4.1.3© quote: “X is not allowed” then they can go look it up themselves.
However, this can be annoying to others in informal family conversation, so I don’t recommend it for discussions with your significant others.
For an official response, refer to:
Let me know if there are any questions pertaining to this reply.
Thanks for the update. That clears everything up.
This rule is one reason why your robots’ computers must be attached someplace where you can turn them on and off without having to pick up the entire robot, or otherwise change its location on the field…
OK, now that I almost fell out of my chair laughing…
You can be proactive and reply “no”, then quickly follow that with a humble, “I can quote the Chapter and Verse in the Spec?”
Once you build a fairly accurate Track Record, some of them start to believe you the first time.
Also, if you don’t know the answer, say so, and if you need to think about it, say so as well. It builds you credibility that you know a lot, but you don’t know everything.
You have not met my significant other, she is working on her Master Degree… She is quickly learning about References, BIG TIME!!