View Full Version : Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
Pat Fairbank
22-03-2016, 13:49
Apologies for the inflammatory title, but I predict that this Q&A response (https://frc-qa.firstinspires.org//Question/953/i-understand-that-you-cannot-determine-whether-or-not-a-device-is-legal-sight-unseen-i-am-asking-this-question-because-an-lri-said-it-would-be-a-violation-of-r9-c-if-we-had-a-piece-of-lexan-on-our-ro) is likely to cause some enforcement issues at upcoming events.
Is it now illegal to play defense on an opponent whose camera is mounted low enough such that your robot blocks its view of the goals? Where is the line drawn between blocking the camera vs. blocking actual shots? If you mount a vertical flap of polycarb to your robot and say that it's just there to block flying boulders, does that make it okay?
Apologies for the inflammatory title, but I predict that this Q&A response (https://frc-qa.firstinspires.org//Question/953/i-understand-that-you-cannot-determine-whether-or-not-a-device-is-legal-sight-unseen-i-am-asking-this-question-because-an-lri-said-it-would-be-a-violation-of-r9-c-if-we-had-a-piece-of-lexan-on-our-ro) is likely to cause some enforcement issues at upcoming events.
Is it now illegal to play defense on an opponent whose camera is mounted low enough such that your robot blocks its view of the goals? Where is the line drawn between blocking the camera vs. blocking actual shots? If you mount a vertical flap of polycarb to your robot and say that it's just there to block flying boulders, does that make it okay?
Add sponsor stickers and say that is your sponsor plate; now it's main function isnt for blocking anything.
This is going to turn into a material war. They specifically locked out plastic, but what if a team uses bumper fabric?
notmattlythgoe
22-03-2016, 13:53
http://p.fod4.com/p/media/5c597eb60b/dVJNUJlVS6yeyEYhtJIL_Confused%20Mark%20Wahlberg.gi f
Why would they think this is right?
PayneTrain
22-03-2016, 13:53
we cant shoot in the high goal but we will just put a camera pointing up on the robot for memes now
Slippery slopes are slippery.
I don't agree with this ruling at all. Camera oriented robots have to get used to dealing with defense, and have a plan against it. My question is: how often will it actually be enforced? It seems that it would have to be a call made by the lead robot inspector, and as long as you tell him its main purpose is to block boulders, it's technically not illegal anyway.
Cam_Team 2619
22-03-2016, 14:03
The clickbait is real with this title...
On a real note, I think that making this illegal would be completely ruining a strategy and style of play that has no inherent issues to it; defense is a legitimate strat, and should be allowed.
AllenGregoryIV
22-03-2016, 14:03
This is just getting crazy. Has common sense gone out the window. The Q948 answer isn't any better about suction cups on the field and attaching to the driver station shelf.
How is anyone expected to know if a team is intending to block vision instead of just blocking shots? Also wasn't that part of the design challenge did any low camera mounted teams not expect to have robots in front of them blocking their vision?
Chris is me
22-03-2016, 14:04
Part of the difficulty here is the way the question itself was worded. The answer itself isn't as bad as an overly broad interpretation of the answer. The question and the answer specifically deal with "a piece of plastic installed to prevent a camera from seeing the reflective tape on the goals ", not all tall pieces of plastic or tall robots. My primary concern is if this Q&A is interpreted so broadly as to say blocking views of cameras is illegal.
Keep in mind this is an inspection issue, not a game match issue, so it's not actually illegal to play defense on a robot with a camera regardless of your design...
Jean Tenca
22-03-2016, 14:05
So... goodbye noodle blockers?
I find this to be a strange decision by the GDC. However, to be safe we'll be adding a camera on each side of our robot a̶s̶ ̶d̶e̶f̶e̶n̶s̶e̶ ̶d̶e̶t̶e̶r̶r̶e̶n̶t̶ for target tracking.
Lil' Lavery
22-03-2016, 14:10
Part of the difficulty here is the way the question itself was worded. The answer itself isn't as bad as an overly broad interpretation of the answer. The question and the answer specifically deal with "a piece of plastic installed to prevent a camera from seeing the reflective tape on the goals ", not all tall pieces of plastic or tall robots. My primary concern is if this Q&A is interpreted so broadly as to say blocking views of cameras is illegal.
Keep in mind this is an inspection issue, not a game match issue, so it's not actually illegal to play defense on a robot with a camera regardless of your design...
Bingo.
The person asking the question asked if it was legal to have a device intended to interfere with sensors. The GDC responded to the question asked. People here are interpreting that to mean a much broader answer, that no devices capable of blocking cameras are allowed.
Bingo.
The person asking the question asked if it was legal to have a device intended to interfere with sensors. The GDC responded to the question asked. People here are interpreting that to mean a much broader answer, that no devices capable of blocking cameras are allowed.
People are inferring a broad interpretation from past GDC responses.
waialua359
22-03-2016, 14:12
You can still manually aim your robot to the castle high goal, with your camera blocked. Just takes a little longer....🙂
But if it's true, it will definitely change the dynamics of the game in the upcoming weeks.
Let me get this straight, if my opponents have no vision targeting capability that uses a camera, but instead rely upon a photon cannon to confirm goal alignment, my screen that blocks the photon cannon beam is legal? Next match, my robot is illegal if one of the opponents does have a camera-based targeting system in place.
Clear as mud...
notmattlythgoe
22-03-2016, 14:13
http://e.lvme.me/3risbcx.jpg
D.Allred
22-03-2016, 14:14
Part of the difficulty here is the way the question itself was worded. The answer itself isn't as bad as an overly broad interpretation of the answer. The question and the answer specifically deal with "a piece of plastic installed to prevent a camera from seeing the reflective tape on the goals ", not all tall pieces of plastic or tall robots. My primary concern is if this Q&A is interpreted so broadly as to say blocking views of cameras is illegal.
Keep in mind this is an inspection issue, not a game match issue, so it's not actually illegal to play defense on a robot with a camera regardless of your design...
I don't understand your point. You can't play the defense if you don't pass inspection. Could you clarify?
Bottom line, no matter how the question was worded the answer does not make sense.
David
RoboAlum
22-03-2016, 14:14
well thats just dumb why even have a defense element to the game if you might not even be able to use it. Just cross your fingers that all the good shooters switch to photon cannons
waialua359
22-03-2016, 14:15
People are inferring a broad interpretation from past GDC responses.
That does happen often, but what happens if a team complains about it, shows them the blocking robot and a printout of the Q/A response? I'm sure all referees won't see it the same way.
Lil' Lavery
22-03-2016, 14:16
Let me get this straight, if my opponents have no vision targeting capability that uses a camera, but instead rely upon a photon cannon to confirm goal alignment, my screen that blocks the photon cannon beam is legal? Next match, my robot is illegal if one of the opponents does have a camera-based targeting system in place.
Clear as mud...
No. Per this Q&A response, if the Lead Robot Inspector determines that a component on your robot is intended to interfere with any robot's ability to sense the high goal, then you will not pass inspection. It has no impact on in match calls.
That does happen often, but what happens if a team complains about it, shows them the blocking robot and a printout of the Q/A response? I'm sure all referees won't see it the same way.
That'll then go on how the LRI or Head Ref interprets the response by the GDC.
rich2202
22-03-2016, 14:16
The problem with the question is that the GDC is trying to be sensitive to R9, blue box A and C
A. Shields, curtains, or any other devices or materials designed or used
to obstruct or limit the vision of any DRIVERS and/or COACHES and/
or interfere with their ability to safely control their ROBOT
C. Any devices or decorations specifically intended to jam or interfere
with the remote sensing capabilities of another ROBOT, including
vision systems, acoustic range finders, sonars, infrared proximity
detectors, etc. (e.g. including imagery on your ROBOT that, to a
reasonably astute observer, mimics the retro-reflective features of the
TOWER described in Section 2.3.1.3 TOWER
So, if the purpose of a robot piece is to block cameras (limit the vision), then it is a violation of R9.
If the purpose is to block shots, then that is ok, as it is an obstacle that robot designers are supposed to take into account.
So, put up an opaque piece of fabric that is supposed to interfere with boulder shooting, and you are fine. If it happens to block vision, so be it.
The rule is intended to prevent a defending robot from intentionally shining a flashlight directly into the camera of the other robot.
As they say: Bad cases make bad law.
Just make sure the robot piece has a purpose other than to interfere with sensing capabilities of the robot.
That'll then go on how the LRI or Head Ref interprets the response by the GDC.
IMHO: As an R9 call, that is solely in the LRI's court. In general, G's are for Ref's, and R's are for RI's.
The person asking the question asked if it was legal to have a device intended to interfere with sensors. The GDC responded to the question asked. People here are interpreting that to mean a much broader answer, that no devices capable of blocking cameras are allowed.
This is my interpretation aswell. As long as it is clear that you are using your mechanism to block boulders being shot, and not to interfere with vision/sensing abilities, than your robot should be deemed legal and not in violation of R9-c. People are interpreting this in a much broader scope than the initial question refered to.
Rangel(kf7fdb)
22-03-2016, 14:19
This is stupid. Any robots with cameras mounted low should have had countermeasures in place to deal with tall blockers. Can't every low robot now put a camera on their robot just so people can't block. In my opinion this is going to drastically change the game.
Michael Corsetto
22-03-2016, 14:20
The problem with the question is that the GDC is trying to be sensitive to R9, blue box A and C
So, if the purpose of a robot piece is to block cameras (limit the vision), then it is a violation of R9.
If the purpose is to block shots, then that is ok, as it is an obstacle that robot designers are supposed to take into account.
So, put up an opaque piece of fabric that is supposed to interfere with boulder shooting, and you are fine. If it happens to block vision, so be it.
The rule is intended to prevent a defending robot from intentionally shining a flashlight directly into the camera of the other robot.
As they say: Bad cases make bad law.
Just make sure the robot piece has a purpose other than to interfere with sensing capabilities of the robot.
That's your (very reasonable) opinion.
However, the Head Ref at CVR ruled that all 4'6" blockers violated R9, Blue Box A. We had to cut large holes in our blockers to make them legal.
I believe this was a misinterpretation, but the rules and especially the Blue Box is not clear.
-Mike
Say goodbye to cheesecaking blockers on second picks.
Say goodbye to cheesecaking blockers on second picks.
RIP Cheesecake :(
Rangel(kf7fdb)
22-03-2016, 14:22
Say goodbye to cheesecaking blockers on second picks.
Also say goodbye to any kind of defense against outerworks shooters.
Also say goodbye to any kind of defense against outerworks shooters.
Defensive play just moved to the neutral zone....
rich2202
22-03-2016, 14:26
However, the Head Ref at CVR ruled that all 4'6" blockers violated R9, Blue Box A. We had to cut large holes in our blockers to make them legal.
Isn't the purpose of the Spy is because the GDC anticipated that it would be difficult for a Driver to see the other side of the field?
Recycle Rush anticipated that same problem, but told Teams to expect it and plan accordingly - which they could do without interference from the other alliance (litter being the exception).
Abhishek R
22-03-2016, 14:27
well thats just dumb why even have a defense element to the game if you might not even be able to use it. Just cross your fingers that all the good shooters switch to photon cannons
While I disagree with this Q&A response, many sports have an "offense-first" mindset, favoring the offense and punishing the defense with a foul. This kind of mindset being shown in the Q&A is not unprecedented in games like soccer or basketball. They are clearly trying to make the defender's role more difficult because they want to reward the the difficult task of scoring in the high goal - hence the reason R9-C even exists in the first place.
Pat Fairbank
22-03-2016, 14:28
The person asking the question asked if it was legal to have a device intended to interfere with sensors. The GDC responded to the question asked. People here are interpreting that to mean a much broader answer, that no devices capable of blocking cameras are allowed.
Be that as it may, is it too much to ask for the GDC to use their own common sense and answer the question that the asker really intended to ask? My principal concern here is that lacking further clarification about what blocking strategies are actually legal, LRIs are going to see this Q&A and start applying it incorrectly to robots that are legal within the intent of the rule.
Citrus Dad
22-03-2016, 14:29
The problem with the question is that the GDC is trying to be sensitive to R9, blue box A and C
So, if the purpose of a robot piece is to block cameras (limit the vision), then it is a violation of R9.
If the purpose is to block shots, then that is ok, as it is an obstacle that robot designers are supposed to take into account.
So, put up an opaque piece of fabric that is supposed to interfere with boulder shooting, and you are fine. If it happens to block vision, so be it.
The rule is intended to prevent a defending robot from intentionally shining a flashlight directly into the camera of the other robot.
As they say: Bad cases make bad law.
Just make sure the robot piece has a purpose other than to interfere with sensing capabilities of the robot.
IMHO: As an R9 call, that is solely in the LRI's court. In general, G's are for Ref's, and R's are for RI's.
This sets up an interesting situation--what if a robot can shoot over a fully extended blocker, but it's camera can't see past the blocker because it's mounted so low? I don't think that was the intent of the rule, but that could make it illegal to block a catapult shooter, but allow blocking of low wheeled shooters.
headlight
22-03-2016, 14:31
For an engineering activity that generally focuses heavily on results and effects there are a surprising number of rules that hinge on intention.
If I am able to justify my large blocker that happens to impede camera operation by claiming I intended it to only block boulders, can I justify running my ultrasonic range finders on full blast all match because my team collects the data for our study on the effectiveness of range finders during matches? All remote sensing on a robot is going to be subject to interference from ambient conditions and from other robots, the question that needs to be resolved is how much interference is allowed and if the legality of the interference is determined by the intentions of the team or the actual effects of the device.
JohnFogarty
22-03-2016, 14:31
Meanwhile I'm over here with with my completely see-through poly-carbonate blocker prototype laughing.
marshall
22-03-2016, 14:31
Be that as it may, is it too much to ask for the GDC to use their own common sense and answer the question that the asker really intended to ask? My principal concern here is that lacking further clarification about what blocking strategies are actually legal, LRIs are going to see this Q&A and start applying it incorrectly to robots that are legal within the intent of the rule.
Yeah, I'm with you Pat. This makes the business of blocking any shots significantly more difficult because someone can say "It blocks our camera!" and point a finger.
I know for certain that at least one team we've encountered this season with a cloth blocker was intentionally designed to block cameras and balls. Personally, I thought it was clever.
Andrew Schreiber
22-03-2016, 14:34
Say goodbye to cheesecaking blockers on second picks.
You can take my blocker... but you can never take my cheesecake!
Team A builds a boulder blocker.
Team B, "hey their blocker blocks our camera."
GDC, "Team B don't move your camera, Team A shall just have to redesign their entire robot to not block Team B's camera."
Yeah, makes total sense.
Has anyone submitted a Q&A asking the other half of the original question? Something along the lines of,
If I have a mechanism on my robot with the sole intent to block boulders being shot into the high goal, but it unintentionally interferes with an oponents vision system, would this be in violation of R9-c?
Get final clarification once and for all on this matter?
I'd ask it myself but I don't have access to my teams Q&A account at the moment.
hardcopi
22-03-2016, 14:44
So basically they are saying that it is illegal to use anything to stop the robot from functioning as it was intended to. Ok... then defense is illegal beause my robot was designed to shoot. The low bar should be illegal because we are a tall robot, etc...
They will rethink this I am pretty sure.
Anthony Galea
22-03-2016, 14:45
If this is going to be the ruling, saying that you cannot block shooters, I will be very upset as that was one of the large factors in us becoming a tall robot, we would have been a low bar bot if we knew that your shots are not allowed to be blocked. I sincerely hope the GDC reconsiders, as it feels like the game is being changed fundamentally mid-season.
If my robot intentionally turns another robot which has a camera, is the drive train now considered a device which intends to interfere with the vision of another robot?
Lil' Lavery
22-03-2016, 14:49
Chief Delphi's Greatest Hits vol. 47: Overreactions to Q&A responses
hardcopi
22-03-2016, 14:52
Hmm... could I get the entire opposing team red carded by attaching my camera to the wheels? So anything above like 1 inch would be intending to block my camera.
Obviously that is a bit ridiculous, but blocking a camera seems like a good strategy and if a robot can only shoot on visual cues then they have issues. We had that issue in St Joe when the field rejected our camera (we had it configured incorrectly) and we corrected the issue. We can now shoot with or without the camera.
If my robot intentionally turns another robot which has a camera, is the drive train now considered a device which intends to interfere with the vision of another robot?
Technically this is correct. You could very easily make an argument that your drivetrain is a device intended to interfere with another robot's sensing capabilities.
Peyton Yeung
22-03-2016, 15:05
This sets up an interesting situation--what if a robot can shoot over a fully extended blocker, but it's camera can't see past the blocker because it's mounted so low? I don't think that was the intent of the rule, but that could make it illegal to block a catapult shooter, but allow blocking of low wheeled shooters.
We saw this at the Walker Warren District Event this past weekend. In our last match 3176 played defense on us. They had a long arm they raised up which blocked our flashlight and camera. We were still able to shoot over the arm but it made it so we couldn't see the flashlight nor our camera feed. We never interpreted it as trying to block our vision, just our shot.
nrgy_blast
22-03-2016, 15:10
A tall robot (or piece of polycarb, or a drop cloth held by a robot) doesn't interfere with the proper functioning of the sensor. The sensor is still working just fine - it just can't see what the operator wants it to see. Shining an IR laser at their camera, now THAT would be interfering with the proper functioning of the sensor.
MaGiC_PiKaChU
22-03-2016, 15:11
we had an opponent in 2013 that used a green team shirt as a blocker on our alliance partner's full court shooter that used vision... I guess this is the type of strategy that is not allowed with this Q&A
A tall robot (or piece of polycarb, or a drop cloth held by a robot) doesn't interfere with the proper functioning of the sensor. The sensor is still working just fine - it just can't see what the operator wants it to see. Shining an IR laser at their camera, now THAT would be interfering with the proper functioning of the sensor.
The response doesnt say "proper functioning" it says "sensing capabilities".
How about 95's arm? When its vertical it's fairly tall and does a passable job of blocking shots. That wasn't a specific design goal, but we're happy it does it. I imagine it'll also block a cameras view of the tower.
Is our arm now illegal if a RI decides it is? Because it seems they certainly have the precedent to make that call now.
http://i.imgur.com/HlJZ0IF.jpg
What if I put a range sensor on the front of our robot and argue that its used to sense distance from the tower for shooting guidance, and if a robot gets between the tower and my robot then it's interfering with my robots sensing capabilities? That's obviously ridiculous, so why are cameras any different?
I would have agreed with this until I saw Mike Corsetto's description of an incident at CVR.
Back to your interpretation (and my initial one as well):
Here's a device that was intended to block shots, not intended to interfere with sensors, that was forced to be modified. Seems like some head referees are interpreting this rule to mean that any device which blocks a camera, despite the intent, is illegal.
I believe the rulings Mike is describing from CVR were regarding R9-A (obstructing the vision of drivers or coaches).
I did not hear of any referee calls at CVR of blockers violating R9-C (sensor interference).
Regardless, there is significant ambiguity in the rules for both R9-A and C that should be clarified.
With the rules as enforced at CVR and as clarified by this Q&A response, I would be worried if we had built a defensive blocker.
As written, R9 ("robots shall not ... interfere with the operation of other robots"), could be interpreted as outlawing all defense.
Jon Stratis
22-03-2016, 15:26
The response doesnt say "proper functioning" it says "sensing capabilities".
I would argue that a tall opaque robot does not interfere with the sensing capabilities of other cameras - those cameras still sense whatever they are pointing at. They do not impersonate a goal or make control systems think they are pointed at one when they aren't.
As a corollary to this... What if I have a camera pointed straight in front of my robot with the intent of using it to locate balls on the ground, or to help me line up for crossing defenses? Does that mean opposing robots have to get out of my way and can't get between me and any ball or defense, just because they would be blocking my camera?
From this Q&A, I guess as an LRI I would be forced to make a judgement call on robots with blockers - is the blocker sufficiently tall and sturdy enough that it can be considered a ball blocker?. It doesn't really take much for something to be sturdy enough to deflect balls from scoring, which leaves it pretty wide open.
BrennanB
22-03-2016, 15:28
Defensive play just moved to the neutral zone....
It has always been there, people just haven't been playing it.
Zebra_Fact_Man
22-03-2016, 15:39
mfw all tall, monolithic robots are now violating the rules for obstructing other team's "sensing capabilities".
GG tall 'bots; you must be this short to play Stronghold.
PayneTrain
22-03-2016, 15:53
It has always been there, people just haven't been playing it.
To be fair, playing defense in the neutral zone at lower levels can be pretty spooky because there is much less margin for error for a robot that probably will not be well practiced or well coached enough to handle it in a foul-free way that also doe not impede your alliance.
Chris is me
22-03-2016, 15:56
To be fair, playing defense in the neutral zone at lower levels can be pretty spooky because there is much less margin for error for a robot that probably will not be well practiced or well coached enough to handle it in a foul-free way that also doe not impede your alliance.
You're thinking of the wrong kind of defense. Contest the balls! Don't push the robots! To me, "man defense" is often the wrong call in this game and too many teams are focused on the physical, versus denying access to resources. Denying a ball possession, especially if you give your own alliance possession of the same ball, has a higher return than making a robot miss one shot.
Lil' Lavery
22-03-2016, 15:57
What if I put a range sensor on the front of our robot and argue that its used to sense distance from the tower for shooting guidance, and if a robot gets between the tower and my robot then it's interfering with my robots sensing capabilities? That's obviously ridiculous, so why are cameras any different?
Cameras aren't any different. Let's look at the Q&A response. I'm going to bold the passage I feel is pertinent here.
A. A piece of plastic installed to prevent a camera from seeing the reflective tape on the goals is a device specifically designed or intended to interfere with another ROBOT'S sensing capabilities and is prohibited by R9 and the added language included in its Blue Box. Meanwhile, please see the answer to Q937 as we feel this is an important element to Lead Robot Inspector authority.
A drivetrain is not specifically designed or intended to interfere with ultrasonic sensors (or cameras or any other sensors). A drivetrain has very obvious alternative uses, that make it clear the intent of having a drivetrain was not to jam sensors, but rather to move around the field. Any robot inspector will be able to ascertain this.
With regards to your arm or other "tall opaque" objects, the same logic applies. If the design of the device is obvious that it is not specifically designed or intended to block camera vision, then the Lead Robot Inspector is unlikely to deem it illegal.
This ruling is not a game changer.
PayneTrain
22-03-2016, 16:00
You're thinking of the wrong kind of defense. Contest the balls! Don't push the robots! To me, "man defense" is often the wrong call in this game and too many teams are focused on the physical, versus denying access to resources. Denying a ball possession, especially if you give your own alliance possession of the same ball, has a higher return than making a robot miss one shot.
We're both thinking of kinds of defense that will not be seen in a considerably effective way before Week 6 because the supply of robots capable of it do not exist at most events and because of that, the demand is also absent.
Defense is going to get really fun Week 6 and later; aka by the time most teams have squished the bugs in their shooters :)
This ruling is not a game changer.
You are far too trusting in the ability of random volunteers to exercise restraint and common sense when making their rulings.
Chris is me
22-03-2016, 16:09
We're both thinking of kinds of defense that will not be seen in a considerably effective way before Week 6 because the supply of robots capable of it do not exist at most events and because of that, the demand is also absent.
Defense is going to get really fun Week 6 and later; aka by the time most teams have squished the bugs in their shooters :)
I don't know what you're talking about - this is something my alliance did in Week 1. Finding a second pick with a functional intake is not exceptionally hard at most events, and it's also somewhat easy to cheesecake. Using this strategy, plus a lot of luck and opportunism, we were able to win one of our semi-final matches against the eventual event winners. There's only 9 balls in the middle - teams should be contesting these at all levels of play! (Assuming "score in the low goal" is present at the lowest levels of play, which I guess might not be)
Lil' Lavery
22-03-2016, 16:10
You are far too trusting in the ability of random volunteers to exercise restraint and common sense when making their rulings.
Lead robot inspectors are not random. They are typically seasoned FRC veterans. We've already had one comment in this thread regarding his interpretation of this Q&A response.
Rangel(kf7fdb)
22-03-2016, 16:19
Lead robot inspectors are not random. They are typically seasoned FRC veterans. We've already had one comment in this thread regarding his interpretation of this Q&A response.
So question, if a team is obviously shooting high arc lob shots over a blocker's height limit, will the refs call the messing with sensors rule if the blocker attempts to "block" the shot but is really just blocking the camera? Especially if the blocker wasn't "intending" to block cameras but just block shots.
Chris is me
22-03-2016, 16:21
will the refs call the messing with sensors rule if the blocker attempts to "block" the shot but is really just blocking the camera?
This Q&A is an inspection issue, not a match play issue. If you violate this rule it would be during inspection, not during a match. There is no gameplay associated rule that penalizes teams for standing in front of cameras or whatever.
I am the original poster of the QA question. I phrased the question the way I did because when we went to reinspect our drive team told the RI that we added the device to block a camera's vision. My interpretation of rule R9-C is that it prevents a team from using something to "trick" an opponent's sensor. (Using reflective tape on the robot fro example) I did not think the intent of the rule was to prevent defense by obstructing vision and said as much to the RI. I have no discontent with his decision but I wanted to get the rule clarified because it might be an issue at another time. At the time I thought about R9-A but the blocking device was only 36" tall so that didn't worry me.
I can see where a 4'6" device could be in violation of R9-A, especially if it was up against the castle wall.
The ruling was very disappointing to me because of all the things mentioned in this post. It could mean that any type of shot blocker would be illegal if deemed that it also prevents a sensor from working the way a team wants.
This Q&A is an inspection issue, not a match play issue. If you violate this rule it would be during inspection, not during a match. There is no gameplay associated rule that penalizes teams for standing in front of cameras or whatever.At CVR, the LRI left it up to the Head Referee's discretion. Teams who had passed inspection were later forced to modify. After helping an alliance partner install a blocker, the LRI "suggested" that windows be added because the head referee would rule it a violation of R9-A.
Brandon Holley
22-03-2016, 16:40
So question, if a team is obviously shooting high arc lob shots over a blocker's height limit, will the refs call the messing with sensors rule if the blocker attempts to "block" the shot but is really just blocking the camera? Especially if the blocker wasn't "intending" to block cameras but just block shots.
This is just like pre-crime in Minority Report. Is a shot unblockable if said shot hasn't actually been taken yet?
-Brando
This is just like pre-crime in Minority Report. Is a shot unblockable if said shot hasn't actually been taken yet?
-Brando
Except in this instance, Rules for Intent(even supposed intent) have been laid out.
Brandon Holley
22-03-2016, 16:47
Except in this instance, Rules for Intent(even supposed intent) have been laid out.
If my intent is to block your shot (not your camera) - how do we know I couldn't block your shot until you actually take your shot?
Every shot is different - some will be clearly unblockable, others will be right on the edge, but unblockable and others will be right on the edge, but sometimes blockable...
Oh and in doing all of this, your camera was completely screened because I was trying to block your (maybe) unblockable shot...
-Brando
If my intent is to block your shot (not your camera) - how do we know I couldn't block your shot until you actually take your shot?
Every shot is different - some will be clearly unblockable, others will be right on the edge, but unblockable and others will be right on the edge, but sometimes blockable...
Oh and in doing all of this, your camera was completely screened because I was trying to block your (maybe) unblockable shot...
-Brando
So then even if the shot misses but makes it past your blocker, you just gave that team, and their alliance, a viable reason to argue for a rematch and you having to take off your blocker because you didnt block their shot but you did block there vision system.
Lil' Lavery
22-03-2016, 16:55
So then even if the shot misses but makes it past your blocker, you just gave that team, and their alliance, a viable reason to argue for a rematch and you having to take off your blocker because you didnt block their shot but you did block there vision system.
I fail to see how. You didn't violate any game rules. You already passed inspection, as your device was not specifically designed for blocking camera vision.
waialua359
22-03-2016, 16:56
Lead robot inspectors are not random. They are typically seasoned FRC veterans. We've already had one comment in this thread regarding his interpretation of this Q&A response.
Yes, LRIs are usually not random, but that doesn't correlate to all rules being interpreted the same way. Same for Safety inspectors, Referees, etc.
Hopefully, FIRST will address this further and soon since CD has exploded on this topic.
I fail to see how. You didn't violate any game rules. You already passed inspection, as your device was not specifically designed for blocking camera vision.
Your "blocker" didnt block my boulder, therefore, its not there to block boulders. I could very easily go to the Head Ref with this Q&A and convince them that your blocker was used to impede my vision tracking.
Brandon Holley
22-03-2016, 16:59
So then even if the shot misses but makes it past your blocker, you just gave that team, and their alliance, a viable reason to argue for a rematch and you having to take off your blocker because you didnt block their shot but you did block there vision system.
But my blocker wasnt specifically designed to block vision systems, it was designed to block boulders. The fact that it prevents line of sight to a target is just a fortunate-for-me side effect.
By the logic above then, even a 12" tall robot that blocks a camera someone has stashed UNDER their bumpers for whatever reason can be flagged for blocking a vision system and subsequently induce a replayed match - this time the 12" 'blocking robot' must now, not even drive near that team? remove their, i dont even know what?
The tail is wagging the dog - mount your cameras low and demand replays if there is any vision interference is not something I think any of us want to see...
-Brando
But my blocker wasnt specifically designed to block vision systems, it was designed to block boulders. The fact that it prevents line of sight to a target is just a fortunate-for-me side effect.
By the logic above then, even a 12" tall robot that blocks a camera someone has stashed UNDER their bumpers for whatever reason can be flagged for blocking a vision system and subsequently induce a replayed match - this time the 12" 'blocking robot' must now, not even drive near that team? remove their, i dont even know what?
The tail is wagging the dog - mount your cameras low and demand replays if there is any vision interference is not something I think any of us want to see...
-Brando
Sadly, that's what this Q&A opens up.
Lil' Lavery
22-03-2016, 17:03
Your "blocker" didnt block my boulder, therefore, its not there to block boulders. I could very easily go to the Head Ref with this Q&A and convince them that your blocker was used to impede my vision tracking.
Your first sentence is a logical fallacy. Just because something didn't do X does not mean it did not intend to do X.
I just can't see how FIRST can implement a rule (or in this case Q+A response, which is really just a rule) that talks about intent. You could lie through your face to the LRI about how your intent for your large 3 feet long piece of plywood was just to catch the wind of other robots moving to help you move faster, but on the field it could block 118's camera which is mounted at the front of their robot - how does anyone make that call? Does 118 go to the Head Ref to ask for the plywood to go away? Then your robot can't play defense! Must all defensive robots have completely 100% transparent non-vision blocking, non-light refracting, borderless pieces of glass on their robots to comply with the vision blockage rule? What if 118 also uses a LIDAR or ultrasonic sensor to judge distance-to-goal? Then any defensive piece of equipment that blocks 118's shooter is illegal, right? I mean, it also blocks the sensing capabilities of that robot!
So many unanswerable questions, so many events already played.
carpedav000
22-03-2016, 17:17
You could make a box tubing frame that goes to max. height and run fishing line from top to bottom at 9.5" increments. Blocks boulders, almost impossible to block cameras. Cheesecake is still alive, you're all welcome :cool:
Richard Wallace
22-03-2016, 17:18
So then even if the shot misses but makes it past your blocker, you just gave that team, and their alliance, a viable reason to argue for a rematch and you having to take off your blocker because you didnt block their shot but you did block there vision system.
I fail to see how. You didn't violate any game rules. You already passed inspection, as your device was not specifically designed for blocking camera vision.I think Sean is correct.
The pertinent tournament rules are G7, T12, T14, T15, and the paragraph quoted below from 5.5.2:
At each event, the Lead ROBOT Inspector (LRI) has final authority on the legality of any COMPONENT, MECHANISM, or ROBOT. Inspectors may re-Inspect ROBOTS to ensure compliance with the rules.
The Head Referee cannot replay a match based on non-compliance with a robot rule (Section 4); however he/she can declare a robot ineligible to compete in a match if that robot does has not passed inspection and that fact is discovered before the match begins, or red-card the entire alliance if it is discovered later. The Lead Robot Inspector's ruling is final on whether a robot passes inspection; neither the Head Referee nor anyone else at the event can overturn it. LRIs may consult with a remote authority (Big Al, for example) if they choose to. Re-inspections can happen any time, but will not change the results of a match that has already been played.
Nuttyman54
22-03-2016, 17:23
I fail to see how. You didn't violate any game rules. You already passed inspection, as your device was not specifically designed for blocking camera vision.
From my interpretation, the sequence of events would probably be:
1) Team A places their robot on field, with a shot blocker
2) Team A plays match, successfully blocks vision and no shots
3) After a visit to the question box, and convincing by a team, the Head Referee determines Team A's robot was in violation of G7-A at the start of the match
4) The Head Referee notifies Team A that the blocker must be removed, or he will disable them at the start of their next match for G7.
Is it right? There is clearly a disagreement between the Head Referee and the LRI as to what constitutes as an R9 violation, since the LRI passed the robot through inspection. Ultimately, however, the Head Referee's decisions are final and he/she may make the interpretation that a mechanism violates G7 and refuse to allow the team to play a match until it is remedied. This sequence and rule gives the Head Referee ultimate discretion as to the legality of any part of a robot. While I'm not saying it will go to this extreme, the Head Referee certainly has the authority to disable a robot he/she believes is in violation of a robot rule.
The major concern is consistent enforcement with something that already exists in such a grey area. The question of what constitutes as "specifically designed to interfere with" and what constitutes as "interfering with remote sensing capabilities" is what defines an R9 violation, and this Q&A has opened up a very large question as to the intended interpretation. Previously, I would have thought that Jon Stratis' interpretation was the correct one: passive devices which interrupt line of sight are not interference, as long as they are not attempting to mimic the vision target or otherwise confuse the software. The GDC seems to have taken the stance that "blocking" is to be considered "interfering". R9 is a safety rule at the core, and nothing about blocking camera tracking seems to be inherently unsafe, unlike tricking a camera to see another goal, and causing a bystander to get hit with a ball (or whatever the game piece is)
It's worth noting that the term "specifically designed to" and "solely designed to" are not equivalent. I can have a device which is specifically designed to accomplish multiple things, such as an arm which can manipulate multiple defenses. I can also have a device which is specifically designed to block shots, vision and help me see my robot. It has multiple intended functions. How do you prove that something was not specifically designed for a task that it is performing?
You could make a box tubing frame that goes to max. height and run fishing line from top to bottom at 9.5" increments. Blocks boulders, almost impossible to block cameras. Cheesecake is still alive, you're all welcome :cool:
But your box tubing confuses my camera algorithm! And blocks my rangefinder, throwing off my shot! /argument_to_head_ref
Abhishek R
22-03-2016, 17:38
I fail to see how. You didn't violate any game rules. You already passed inspection, as your device was not specifically designed for blocking camera vision.
The Head Referee cannot replay a match based on non-compliance with a robot rule (Section 4); however he/she can declare a robot ineligible to compete in a match if that robot does has not passed inspection and that fact is discovered before the match begins, or red-card the entire alliance if it is discovered later. The Lead Robot Inspector's ruling is final on whether a robot passes inspection; neither the Head Referee nor anyone else at the event can overturn it. LRIs may consult with a remote authority (Big Al, for example) if they choose to. Re-inspections can happen any time, but will not change the results of a match that has already been played.
Even if a robot has passed inspection, an alliance can go to the Head Referee with this Q&A in hand, declare that the blocker shouldn't have passed inspection as it doesn't seem to comply with R9-C, the Head Referee then red cards the alliance for every match the robot played in with the blocker installed.
Jon Stratis
22-03-2016, 17:40
From my interpretation, the sequence of events would probably be:
1) Team A places their robot on field, with a shot blocker
2) Team A plays match, successfully blocks vision and no shots
3) After a visit to the question box, and convincing by a team, the Head Referee determines Team A's robot was in violation of G7-A at the start of the match
4) The Head Referee notifies Team A that the blocker must be removed, or he will disable them at the start of their next match for G7.
Is it right? There is clearly a disagreement between the Head Referee and the LRI as to what constitutes as an R9 violation, since the LRI passed the robot through inspection. Ultimately, however, the Head Referee's decisions are final and he/she may make the interpretation that a mechanism violates G7 and refuse to allow the team to play a match until it is remedied. This sequence and rule gives the Head Referee ultimate discretion as to the legality of any part of a robot. While I'm not saying it will go to this extreme, the Head Referee certainly has the authority to disable a robot he/she believes is in violation of a robot rule.
this is not correct. Per the tournament rules,
At each event, the Lead ROBOT Inspector (LRI) has final authority on the legality of any COMPONENT, MECHANISM, or ROBOT. Inspectors may re-Inspect ROBOTS to ensure compliance with the rules.
The head ref can talk with the LRI, share concerns over mechanisms And robots (and believe me, this happens frequently!), But they can't overrule the LRI on a robot rule.
Please, quote the rulebook where it gives the head ref the power to disable a robot for violation of a robot rule. There are specific game rules that reference specific robot rules with consequences (like the bumper rules), and there are game rules that mirror robot rules (like starting configuration). But there's nothing like what you've described here.
carpedav000
22-03-2016, 17:40
But your box tubing confuses my camera algorithm! And blocks my rangefinder, throwing off my shot! /argument_to_head_ref
I did say ALMOST impossible :p
Lil' Lavery
22-03-2016, 17:43
Even if a robot has passed inspection, an alliance can go to the Head Referee with this Q&A in hand, declare that the blocker shouldn't have passed inspection as it doesn't seem to comply with R9-C, the Head Referee then red cards the alliance for every match the robot played in with the blocker installed.
See Jon Stratis' post right beneath yours.
Jon Stratis
22-03-2016, 17:44
Even if a robot has passed inspection, an alliance can go to the Head Referee with this Q&A in hand, declare that the blocker shouldn't have passed inspection as it doesn't seem to comply with R9-C, the Head Referee then red cards the alliance for every match the robot played in with the blocker installed.
Do you have any idea how much illegal stuff we find on robots late in the season? I've inspected at champs for a number of years, and found that teams that went through several events did so with something illegal on their ROBOT since the beginning. For example, I had to make one team rewired their entire robot after finding they used the wrong gauge wire.. And had competed at 3 events before champs!
We can't retroactively red card teams like that. You would see half the teams at a competition getting red carded for one or more matches when we do the finals reinspection, as we ALWAYS find stuff that the teams hadn't had respected during the event. I really, really doubt you or anyone else wants us to go to that extreme.
Thad House
22-03-2016, 17:45
this is not correct. Per the tournament rules,
The head ref can talk with the LRI, share concerns over mechanisms And robots (and believe me, this happens frequently!), But they can't overrule the LRI on a robot rule.
Please, quote the rulebook where it gives the head ref the power to disable a robot for violation of a robot rule. There are specific game rules that reference specific robot rules with consequences (like the bumper rules), and there are game rules that mirror robot rules (like starting configuration). But there's nothing like what you've described here.
G7-A gives them permission to disable a robot for not being in compliance with all robot rules.
this is not correct. Per the tournament rules,
The head ref can talk with the LRI, share concerns over mechanisms And robots (and believe me, this happens frequently!), But they can't overrule the LRI on a robot rule.
Please, quote the rulebook where it gives the head ref the power to disable a robot for violation of a robot rule. There are specific game rules that reference specific robot rules with consequences (like the bumper rules), and there are game rules that mirror robot rules (like starting configuration). But there's nothing like what you've described here.
I suppose if I were trying to make an argument for the disablement of a robot, I would reference G7-A.
When placed on the FIELD fora a MATCH, each robot must be:
A. in compliance with all ROBOT rules, ie has passed Inspection
Violation:...if it is not a quick remedy the offending ROBOT will be DISABLED and, at the discretion of the Head REFEREE, must be re-inspected/
Sniped by Thad House.
Lil' Lavery
22-03-2016, 17:49
G7-A gives them permission to disable a robot for not being in compliance with all robot rules.
Which is ultimately determined by the LRI, as the LRI has the ultimate authority on the legality of all robots/components/mechanisms.
I suppose if I were trying to make an argument for the disablement of a robot, I would reference G7-A.
But if a robot has been completely approved by the LRI, and has already passed inspection, then a G7 argument is neither here nor there. The Head Referee should only require a reinspection if he feels the blocker in question is illegal, but if the LRI already inspected you and deemed that your blocker is fully within the rules, then he gets the final say in terms of robot legality.
Nuttyman54
22-03-2016, 17:57
I fail to see how an LRI can ever overrule the Head Referee on a G7-A decision. I am not arguing that the Head Referee is correct. Head Referees make incorrect interpretations of rules all the time, unfortunately. It's part of being human. Once the Head Referee determines that G7-A is violated, it is their discretion and their discretion alone (per 5.5.3) to make the decision to disable a robot, regardless of if the rule was actually violated. It is in the ARENA, it is under Head Ref jurisdiction. Period.
The Head Ref could see a blocker, make an independent decision without consulting the LRI that it violates R9, disable a robot, have the team come up to the question box afterwards, and refuse to replay the match, even if the LRI says it was legal and passed inspection. It's their prerogative.
I'm not saying it will ever go to that extreme. But per the rules, it could happen, and crazier rulings have happened on shakier ground in the past.
Jon Stratis
22-03-2016, 18:02
Which is ultimately determined by the LRI, as the LRI has the ultimate authority on the legality of all robots/components/mechanisms.
Exactly. I have never seen a head ref call a G7-A on his own. If a robot has passed inspection, the head ref has to assume it's legal according to the robot rules. Believe it or not, most head refs don't know the robot rules all that well! Once a robot has passed inspection, the most I've seen a head ref do is ask the LRI to take another look at something specific.
Abhishek R
22-03-2016, 18:08
Do you have any idea how much illegal stuff we find on robots late in the season? I've inspected at champs for a number of years, and found that teams that went through several events did so with something illegal on their ROBOT since the beginning. For example, I had to make one team rewired their entire robot after finding they used the wrong gauge wire.. And had competed at 3 events before champs!
We can't retroactively red card teams like that. You would see half the teams at a competition getting red carded for one or more matches when we do the finals reinspection, as we ALWAYS find stuff that the teams hadn't had respected during the event. I really, really doubt you or anyone else wants us to go to that extreme.
I don't doubt that. At the same time, retroactive red cards have a precedent and that's why I think it would be a good idea to eliminate gray area when we find it, such as in this Q&A.
Alan Anderson
22-03-2016, 18:53
Say goodbye to cheesecaking blockers on second picks.
Just cheesehole them enough for cameras to be able to see through them.
The solution to a cheese problem is always more cheese.
Just cheesehole them enough for cameras to be able to see through them.
The solution to a cheese problem is always more cheese.
Are there any teams from Switzerland?
CJ_Elliott
22-03-2016, 19:47
Here's a device that was intended to block shots, not intended to interfere with sensors, that was forced to be modified. Seems like some head referees are interpreting this rule to mean that any device which blocks a camera, despite the intent, is illegal.
Sorry I am late to the discussion but here is what my issue with this entire decision is.
First, It is that there can be teams, who even if they are not designed to play defense, can put a big piece of something on their robot and be a great 3rd robot playing defense (see 1369 at Palmetto in week .5). Now. With this rule in place, if a team claimed that they couldn't shoot because of the big piece of something then even if the LRI had final say at inspection, now when they re-enter the field it is up to the Head Ref to decide whether it is made to block/deter balls or to mess with cameras. If Head Ref determines that it is illegal, now you have what happened at CVR. (Side note. Even if you cut 9" holes in whatever you are using as a blocker... reasonably how well could you line up with the defensive team simply moving back and forth?)
Second, theoretically say a team like 95 (Love the design btw) were to loose the ability to use their arm for a few matches and played defense with it... It's not designed to play defense but it probably would do one heck of a job at it. Now it is up to the Head Ref to determine if they are blocking balls or blocking cameras. Just my opinion.
Lil' Lavery
22-03-2016, 19:55
Once again, what happened at CVR was with regards to R9-A (blocking driver vision) as opposed to R9-C (blocking sensors). The LRI chose to side with the Head Ref, and advised teams that sheets capable of blocking driver vision were not allowed.
CJ_Elliott
22-03-2016, 20:05
But going back to my first point. Now we have an issue similar to what is happening in the NFL (for those of you that watch) with the runner vs. defenseless player thing. Essentially my point is that it should be common sense to say that if a team has something really tall and big on their robot, like 1369, it is for blocking boulders. Especially when there is no reason to suspect that they are trying to "play" with the sensors/cameras. Now if a team came onto the field with a mock tower with reflective tape/metal/what be it. Ok, that should be taken away.
A good defensive robot shouldn't have to be disabled because a game with already poor driver viewing has something on the field that is trying to block their boulders and just happens to be big and not exactly see-through.
The Lucas
22-03-2016, 20:16
I guess everyone should go stock up on nylon fishing net for cheesecaking purposes :rolleyes:
CJ_Elliott
22-03-2016, 20:18
I guess everyone should go stock up on nylon fishing net for cheesecaking purposes :rolleyes:
And if you already have it because you're from Minnesota? We had too much fishing line before it was cool :cool:
Also wasn't that part of the design challenge did any low camera mounted teams not expect to have robots in front of them blocking their vision?
Well, that's the entire reason we have our camera mounted on our claw that extends to 40". I guess we can move it down to our drive base if we notice the LRI is disallowing opaque 4'6" blockers.
The other Gabe
22-03-2016, 20:43
Are there any teams from Switzerland?
we do have teams from Wisconsin, at least :v
If the rule bans interfering with sensing, would any robot with ultrasonic distance sensors immediately render defense bots illegal?
If it's a sheet meant to block balls (not just the camera) that should be fine... right?
CJ_Elliott
22-03-2016, 20:58
If the rule bans interfering with sensing, would any robot with ultrasonic distance sensors immediately render defense bots illegal?
If it's a sheet meant to block balls (not just the camera) that should be fine... right?
That is the issue. That isn't necessarily the case
Jared Russell
22-03-2016, 21:03
Any robot made of matter exerts gravitational pull that messes with my accelerometer, and is therefore illegal.
(There, I think I've taken the pedantry to its logical conclusion)
Zebra_Fact_Man
22-03-2016, 21:12
Any robot made of matter exerts gravitational pull that messes with my accelerometer, and is therefore illegal.
(There, I think I've taken the pedantry to its logical conclusion)
I find this argument rather shallow and pedantic (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yetwdpsiM8Q).
IronicDeadBird
22-03-2016, 21:47
Our robot uses echolocation to navigate I ask that NOBODY MAKE ANY NOISE otherwise we will fault you for disrupting our sensor abilities. Sorry you had 6 weeks to design with the fact that our team was going to use Echolocation its not my fault you didn't make a silent robot...
pwnageNick
22-03-2016, 22:23
Aside from effecting mechanisms, defensive robots, cheesecake, etc.
At a grander level this makes shorter robots whose cameras could possibly be obstructed a little more valuable and tall robots with cameras unblockable a little less valuable.
The tall teams that made the strategic tradeoff in the beginning of the season probably aren't super happy right now..
IronicDeadBird
22-03-2016, 22:24
This all cuts both ways right? Like if we had a tall robot and we drove in front of our team mate just on the field at any point in time would we be flagged?
Our robot uses echolocation to navigate I ask that NOBODY MAKE ANY NOISE otherwise we will fault you for disrupting our sensor abilities. Sorry you had 6 weeks to design with the fact that our team was going to use Echolocation its not my fault you didn't make a silent robot...
Don't forget about the audience, especially if you plan on having a good robot.
JohnFogarty
22-03-2016, 23:31
Any robot made of matter exerts gravitational pull that messes with my accelerometer, and is therefore illegal.
(There, I think I've taken the pedantry to its logical conclusion)
Your robot's motors generate a magnetic field that messes with our robot's magnetometer. ILLEGAL!!!!กกกก
efoote868
22-03-2016, 23:39
Q: "We want to modify our robot with a component specifically intended to do something outlawed by the rules. Is that against the rules?"
A: "Yes, a component intended to break the rules is against the rules"
CD: RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!
While I hate rules based on intent, the answer to the question should not shock anyone. If the purpose of the component on your robot is to do pretty much anything other than interfere with the drivers or sensors of another robot, it is permitted by rule 9. The fact that it might interfere doesn't matter.
waialua359
23-03-2016, 03:13
Exactly. I have never seen a head ref call a G7-A on his own. If a robot has passed inspection, the head ref has to assume it's legal according to the robot rules. Believe it or not, most head refs don't know the robot rules all that well! Once a robot has passed inspection, the most I've seen a head ref do is ask the LRI to take another look at something specific.
Jon,
we were told by the refs at the Lake Superior event during the semifinals to secure our bumper a little higher on one of the corners of the robot because they said it was too low (sagging). We were told to fix it or sit out. I didnt have a tape measure on me, but we used a wood screw drilled through our frame to secure it temporarily until our final matches were over. Yet, we passed inspection.......twice.
Tom Line
23-03-2016, 03:18
Jon,
we were told by the refs at the Lake Superior event during the semifinals to secure our bumper a little higher on one of the corners of the robot because they said it was too low (sagging). We were told to fix it or sit out. I didnt have a tape measure on me, but we used a wood screw drilled through our frame to secure it temporarily until our final matches were over. Yet, we passed inspection.......twice.
HA!
We've been bitten by the over-zealous bumper ref as well. A couple years (2011) ago after our team put the robot on the field, a ref thought our bumpers were too low. We grabbed a tape measure to prove we were good, but they pulled out a wooden template. They slid the template under the bumper and it went with no problem, but because it touched a fold in the fabric we were forced to raise our bumpers 1/4". We had passed inspection 5 times. 4 district inspections and 1 at the start of states.
waialua359
23-03-2016, 03:18
I fail to see how an LRI can ever overrule the Head Referee on a G7-A decision. I am not arguing that the Head Referee is correct. Head Referees make incorrect interpretations of rules all the time, unfortunately. It's part of being human. Once the Head Referee determines that G7-A is violated, it is their discretion and their discretion alone (per 5.5.3) to make the decision to disable a robot, regardless of if the rule was actually violated. It is in the ARENA, it is under Head Ref jurisdiction. Period.
The Head Ref could see a blocker, make an independent decision without consulting the LRI that it violates R9, disable a robot, have the team come up to the question box afterwards, and refuse to replay the match, even if the LRI says it was legal and passed inspection. It's their prerogative.
I'm not saying it will ever go to that extreme. But per the rules, it could happen, and crazier rulings have happened on shakier ground in the past.
Well said Evan.
rich2202
23-03-2016, 07:26
Jon,
we were told by the refs at the Lake Superior event during the semifinals to secure our bumper a little higher on one of the corners of the robot because they said it was too low (sagging). We were told to fix it or sit out. I didnt have a tape measure on me, but we used a wood screw drilled through our frame to secure it temporarily until our final matches were over. Yet, we passed inspection.......twice.
That is a g19-1 rule which is given to refs. g19-1 is intended to be more independent of the ri's than g7-a, hence the separate, but overlapping rule.
That said, sagging fabric is more forgivable (tell them to fix before next time you are on the field) than the entire bumper sagging (which implies an attachment may have a problem).
PayneTrain
23-03-2016, 07:29
HA!
We've been bitten by the over-zealous bumper ref as well. A couple years (2011) ago after our team put the robot on the field, a ref thought our bumpers were too low. We grabbed a tape measure to prove we were good, but they pulled out a wooden template. They slid the template under the bumper and it went with no problem, but because it touched a fold in the fabric we were forced to raise our bumpers 1/4". We had passed inspection 5 times. 4 district inspections and 1 at the start of states.
Sounds like that person is great at parties
Jon Stratis
23-03-2016, 07:56
Jon,
we were told by the refs at the Lake Superior event during the semifinals to secure our bumper a little higher on one of the corners of the robot because they said it was too low (sagging). We were told to fix it or sit out. I didnt have a tape measure on me, but we used a wood screw drilled through our frame to secure it temporarily until our final matches were over. Yet, we passed inspection.......twice.
Yes, that would be G19-1... Something the refs (in my experience, at least) are finally calling a little more strictly than they have in past years. With the high shock loads robots are taking from crossing defenses, it's really no surprise that things may come loose after a while. In that case, even after having passed inspection it's possible for items like bumpers or starting configuration (G7-D) to get a little out of whack. I have seen head refs call G19-1 and G7-D on their own before, usually with good reason.
But those two rules are distinctly separate from G7-A and this concern that a head ref would overrule an LRI on the specific legality of a robot mechanism.
marshall
23-03-2016, 08:39
Sounds like that person is great at parties
I know measuring bumpers is a favorite party game for me. :cool:
But those two rules are distinctly separate from G7-A and this concern that a head ref would overrule an LRI on the specific legality of a robot mechanism.
The FTA, LRI, & head Referee have some overlap in there duties. One hopes that they will act like grown ups in their interactions. My experience is that they generally do. Section 5.5.2 gives the LRI final authority on robot components. Section 5.5.3 gives the head referee final authority in the arena including what is allowed in the arena. So even if the head referee was wrong, section 5.5.3 would apply giving the referee final authority in the arena. Somebody has to be King.
Follow up Q&A on this
Please clarify Q953 - If a robot meets the sizing requirements for R3 and does not have any markings that are similar to the field (i.e. markings meant to mimic vision targets) does it violate R9-C? If so, could you please expand on the criteria for what violates R9-C? For example: does translucent plastic sheeting or bumper noodles at the maximum height that was added between Qualifications and Eliminations that to a reasonable observer is for the purposes of blocking shots violate R9-C?
FRC1410 on 2016-03-22 | 2 Followers
A. A device which is not specifically intended to interfere with the remote sensing capabilities of another ROBOT, but merely happens to be in the way of that ROBOT sensing a desired object, while intended for other functions(such as blocking shots), would not be a violation of R9-C.
Darn it would been a lot easier making shots without a robot in the way of my low mounted camera. :]
BTW I am pretty sure you can't use Lexan your bumpers, which this thread was originally abouts.
Ryan Dognaux
23-03-2016, 09:05
We grabbed a tape measure to prove we were good, but they pulled out a wooden template. They slid the template under the bumper and it went with no problem, but because it touched a fold in the fabric we were forced to raise our bumpers 1/4". We had passed inspection 5 times. 4 district inspections and 1 at the start of states.
That's just sad. Some referees need to lighten up and keep the team experience in mind instead of seeking out ways to rule them illegal.
That's just sad. Some referees need to lighten up and keep the team experience in mind instead of seeking out ways to rule them illegal.
I'd like to change this to 'Volunteers' and blow it up to mega-poster-size, required to be hung up in all accessible areas of every event venue, ever. While 99.9% of the volunteers at a given event are diligent with their jobs and gracious about it - one bad apple can spoil a kid's whole experience.
I'd like to change this to 'Volunteers' and blow it up to mega-poster-size, required to be hung up in all accessible areas of every event venue, ever. While 99.9% of the volunteers at a given event are diligent with their jobs and gracious about it - one bad apple can spoil a kid's whole experience.
While I agree with the sentiment, that would be a good way to alienate the 99.9% that get it.
Chris is me
23-03-2016, 09:34
While I agree with the sentiment, that would be a good way to alienate the 99.9% that get it.
If "keep the team experience in mind and make sure what you're doing is ultimately about making sure teams have the best experience possible" alienates a "good" volunteer, then I honestly don't think they were that great in the first place. We're here for them. If we're doing this for other reasons, we're doing it for the wrong ones.
If "keep the team experience in mind and make sure what you're doing is ultimately about making sure teams have the best experience possible" alienates a "good" volunteer, then I honestly don't think they were that great in the first place. We're here for them. If we're doing this for other reasons, we're doing it for the wrong ones.
Yep - I didn't mean to say we should keep the 'this is sad... lighten up' language, but the 'you're here for them' bit.
Not enough coffee yet, I suppose. :]
This is something I try to stress at every morning-meeting when I'm volunteer coordinating (or in some way managing an event - for 1923's hosted tournaments, I've got about 19 hats to wear). Think about how well Disney Cast Members are trained to make sure everyone 'has a magical day', and think about the last time someone gave YOU good customer service... now turn around and deliver the same to these kids.
This is something I try to stress at every morning-meeting when I'm volunteer coordinating (or in some way managing an event - for 1923's hosted tournaments, I've got about 19 hats to wear). Think about how well Disney Cast Members are trained to make sure everyone 'has a magical day', and think about the last time someone gave YOU good customer service... now turn around and deliver the same to these kids.
Now that I can get behind. It always best to express these things in a positive way. BTW Head Referee and Volunteer Coordinator are the 2 jobs that need the best people and are certainly the most difficult. I am not sure I would do either for love or money. ;)
mman1506
23-03-2016, 10:23
Q955 has just been posted clarifying rule Q953 https://frc-qa.firstinspires.org//Question/955/please-clarify-q953-if-a-robot-meets-the-sizing-requirements-for-r3-and-does-not-have-any-markings-that-are-similar-to-the-field-i-e-markings-meant-to-mimic-vision-targets-does-it-violate-r9-c
Zebra_Fact_Man
23-03-2016, 10:30
Q955 has just been posted clarifying rule Q953 https://frc-qa.firstinspires.org//Question/955/please-clarify-q953-if-a-robot-meets-the-sizing-requirements-for-r3-and-does-not-have-any-markings-that-are-similar-to-the-field-i-e-markings-meant-to-mimic-vision-targets-does-it-violate-r9-c
Thank you FRC 1410 and GDC for rectifying this potentially game changing defensive exodus!
Defense Apocalypse Cancelled
MichaelHaughney
23-03-2016, 10:41
So by the logic that a robot "specifically designed or intended to interfere with another ROBOT'S sensing capabilities" is a violation of R9, what is to say that because we use a IMU, any robot that bumps us is also in violation of R9?
efoote868
23-03-2016, 10:47
So by the logic that a robot "specifically designed or intended to interfere with another ROBOT'S sensing capabilities" is a violation of R9, what is to say that because we use a IMU, any robot that bumps us is also in violation of R9?
The other robots are designed to play stronghold, not specifically disrupt your sensor. The fact that they can disrupt your sensor through normal game play does not put them in violation of R9.
If they had put an unbalanced spinning mass with the exclusive intent to vibrate the field to disrupt your IMU, that would be a violation of R9.
aldaeron
23-03-2016, 12:27
I have submitted another follow up (https://frc-qa.firstinspires.org/Question/959/assuming-no-interfering-markings-a-la-q955-would-a-robot-that-completely-fills-the-maximum-sizing-volume-allowed-by-r3-and-is-not-transparent-violate-r9-a-or-any-other-rule-assuming-that-to-a-reaso) to (hopefully) clear up any R9-A violations or other issues with defensive add-ons of all kinds (and cake varieties). Should have been a little more thorough in the first Q&A.
-matto-
Edit: General advice to teams is to make sure that the team members talking to inspectors and referees are very clear and consistent in the messaging that any tall parts of the robot (whether added on during competition or not) are for blocking shots only. The fact that some teams chose to build low robots that cannot see or shoot or aim is inconsequential. On the note of visibility and R9-A, the GDC has been clear that lack of visibility was intentional (Team Update 16 says "Limited visibility for drivers was one of the intended challenges with this game ..."). Teams that chose to spend their time and resources improving their visibility can gain an advantage if they thought the problem through carefully and made good design choices.
Lil' Lavery
23-03-2016, 12:30
What's the record for the longest Q&A chain? Can this break it?
aldaeron
23-03-2016, 12:43
What's the record for the longest Q&A chain? Can this break it?
I can still hear you saying you would never break the chain (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6P2_i0Y6ms)
Michael Corsetto
23-03-2016, 13:15
I have submitted another follow up (https://frc-qa.firstinspires.org/Question/959/assuming-no-interfering-markings-a-la-q955-would-a-robot-that-completely-fills-the-maximum-sizing-volume-allowed-by-r3-and-is-not-transparent-violate-r9-a-or-any-other-rule-assuming-that-to-a-reaso) to (hopefully) clear up any R9-A violations or other issues with defensive add-ons of all kinds (and cake varieties). Should have been a little more thorough in the first Q&A.
Thank you for submitting this follow up. Looking forward to the GDC's response, considering the Head Ref's interpretation of R9-A at CVR.
-Mike
Here is Q955 for FYI...
This was also a discussion on our LRI call last night and there was a reasonable solution to cover us until Q955 answer came out.
Q955
FRC Q&A Answered Questions
Q: Please clarify Q953 - If a robot meets the sizing requirements for R3 and does not have any markings that are similar to the field (i.e. markings meant to mimic vision targets) does it violate R9-C? If so, could you please expand on the criteria for what violates R9-C? For example: does translucent plastic sheeting or bumper noodles at the maximum height that was added between Qualifications and Eliminations that to a reasonable observer is for the purposes of blocking shots violate R9-C?
A: A device which is not specifically intended to interfere with the remote sensing capabilities of another ROBOT, but merely happens to be in the way of that ROBOT sensing a desired object, while intended for other functions(such as blocking shots), would not be a violation of R9-C.
(Asked by FRC1410 on 2016-03-22.)
bachster
23-03-2016, 13:34
Jon,
we were told by the refs at the Lake Superior event during the semifinals to secure our bumper a little higher on one of the corners of the robot because they said it was too low (sagging). We were told to fix it or sit out. I didnt have a tape measure on me, but we used a wood screw drilled through our frame to secure it temporarily until our final matches were over. Yet, we passed inspection.......twice.
Hi Glenn,
I'm not sure if the Head Ref was involved prior, but from what I witnessed (I forget which round), a field-side RI noticed that 359's bumpers had zip-ties around the bumpers and notified the LRI. The LRI checked the robot on the field and had the drive team remove the zip-ties since these aren't considered a rigid fastening system and aren't part of the legal bumper cross-section. I was on the field next to your robot when the zip-ties were removed and it was clear that the front corners were not very rigidly attached. I'm not familiar with your bumper fastening system, but it seemed like something must have broken or loosened during a previous match and the zip ties were added as a temporary fix. The LRI allowed 359 to play that match and required that the bumpers be more rigidly attached for the next match, which is when you added the wood screws. Maybe during that same match the Head Ref also noticed them sagging and also gave you a "warning," or maybe the Head Ref had noticed them sagging after the fastening system loosened and that's what prompted the zip ties, but either way, this does seem like an appropriate application of G19-1 (and as far as I know, you weren't fouled or disabled, just asked to fix it for the next match).
I'm currently undecided on whether this rule interpretation is lousy or not, but really, a lot of the theatrics and alarmism in this thread is unbecoming.
People, it is rather difficult to construe this ruling as "anything that interferes with your robot is now illegal." It's not an issue of broad v. narrow reading, a lot of the (rather inane, I think) "well, now <insert common thing here> must also be illegal!" lines of argument simply don't follow at all from the Q&A response without some rather silly mental gymnastics.
Whether intent should factor into robot rules is a valid question with defensible arguments on either side (though I think you'd likely be hard-pressed to eliminate it entirely). But the sky isn't falling, the number of robots this change(?) in interpretation actually applies to is very small, and snarking about how you're going to add a bunch of sensors to your robot so that everyone else's robot is now in violation of the interpretation does not, as far as I can tell, add much to the discussion.
Just my two cents.
Michael Corsetto
23-03-2016, 14:07
I'm currently undecided on whether this rule interpretation is lousy or not, but really, a lot of the theatrics and alarmism in this thread is unbecoming.
People, it is rather difficult to construe this ruling as "anything that interferes with your robot is now illegal." It's not an issue of broad v. narrow reading, a lot of the (rather inane, I think) "well, now <insert common thing here> must also be illegal!" lines of argument simply don't follow at all from the Q&A response without some rather silly mental gymnastics.
Whether intent should factor into robot rules is a valid question with defensible arguments on either side (though I think you'd likely be hard-pressed to eliminate it entirely). But the sky isn't falling, the number of robots this change(?) in interpretation actually applies to is very small, and snarking about how you're going to add a bunch of sensors to your robot so that everyone else's robot is now in violation of the interpretation does not, as far as I can tell, add much to the discussion.
Just my two cents.
While you may not appreciate extreme examples of a certain interpretation, I think they are important.
These extremes (and more moderate examples) highlight ways that teams can get blindsided by a particular LRI or Head Ref's interpretation of the rule.
Some odd interpretation of R9-A led to us cutting "windows" into our shot blocker at CVR. Thankfully, the effectiveness of our defensive strategy was not compromised. I felt like we were just one small interpretation step away from things going differently at CVR, and having tall blockers eliminated completely.
I appreciate the reactions, they are a result of many minds working and analyzing every aspect of this year's challenge.
I think that is pretty cool.
-Mike
Cliffton
23-03-2016, 19:30
http://i.imgur.com/EOdbQ.jpg
Q & A 959 has been answered (https://frc-qa.firstinspires.org/Question/959/assuming-no-interfering-markings-a-la-q955-would-a-robot-that-completely-fills-the-maximum-sizing-volume-allowed-by-r3-and-is-not-transparent-violate-r9-a-or-any-other-rule-assuming-that-to-a-reaso):
Q. Assuming no interfering markings a la Q955, would a robot that completely fills the maximum sizing volume allowed by R3 and is not transparent violate R9-A or any other rule? Assuming that to a reasonable observer that modifications are made to the robot to block shots, may a robot be modified and reinspected during the event to fill the maximum space allowed by R3? Must these modifications be made of transparent materials or have holes cut in them for visibility?
2016-03-23 by FRC1410
A. Before we address your questions, we want to be clear that, as a matter of principal, we try hard to answer the questions asked and avoid inferring what we think the questioner was trying to ask. Given that, please accept our apologies if the information that follows is not what you were seeking. A ROBOT that completely fills the maximum size volume allowed by R3 is not automatically a violation of R9-A, but it is impossible for us to say whether it would violate any other rule. Yes, a ROBOT may be modified after initial Inspection in a variety of ways that are still within the rule set, including increasing its size such that it maxes out the size constraints (and please note T15). There is no requirement that materials used be transparent.
Richard Wallace
24-03-2016, 10:23
Q & A 959 has been answered (https://frc-qa.firstinspires.org/Question/959/assuming-no-interfering-markings-a-la-q955-would-a-robot-that-completely-fills-the-maximum-sizing-volume-allowed-by-r3-and-is-not-transparent-violate-r9-a-or-any-other-rule-assuming-that-to-a-reaso):
In principle, the GDC gave a good answer. That answer might not fully address the questioner's principal concern.
Tem1514 Mentor
27-03-2016, 15:08
We have been told that using a non-see thought screen as a defence to both block a shot and/or block a camera view is against the rules.
Could someone be so kind as point out this rule in the Game Manual for me as I can not seem to find it :(
Many thanks.
Ben Wolsieffer
27-03-2016, 15:12
If you have not done so already, you will want to read through this thread: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=146094
cbale2000
27-03-2016, 15:23
There's nothing against blocking a shot, per say, there is a rule about mechanisms specifically designed to block camera tracking, per R9.
Imo, the simple solution is to just use a sheet of polycarbonate for blocking shots.
dubiousSwain
27-03-2016, 15:34
There's nothing against blocking a shot, per say, there is a rule about mechanisms specifically designed to block camera tracking, per R9.
Imo, the simple solution is to just use a sheet of polycarbonate for blocking shots.
This is purely semantics, but the isn't a rule about /blocking/ the camera image. There is a rule about blocking the vision of driver, and there is a rule about jamming, specifically mimicking the vision targets. But there is no rule about blocking cameras.
This is purely semantics, but the isn't a rule about /blocking/ the camera image. There is a rule about blocking the vision of driver, and there is a rule about jamming, specifically mimicking the vision targets. But there is no rule about blocking cameras.
Q&A says differently. If you build a blocker, purely to block a camera from viewing the goals, that blocker is illegal.
Tem1514 Mentor
27-03-2016, 15:55
Thank you for the link.
Just a few comments IMHO.
Wow, what a can of worms this one is.
I would just like to remind everyone that the Q&A is NOT official, only the Game Manual is. Please see 1.6 in the manual.
So as long as the LRI has passed the robot making it and all of its' components legal (Rule 5.5.2) then the head referee would have to say that a robot is just blocking the shot. Just food for though.
Opps, will move my comments over to the other thread.
Tem1514 Mentor
27-03-2016, 16:08
Just a few comments IMHO.
Wow, what a can of worms this one is.
I would just like to remind everyone that the Q&A is NOT official, only the Game Manual is. Please see 1.6 in the manual.
So as long as the LRI has passed the robot making it and all of its' components legal (Rule 5.5.2) then the head referee would have to say that a robot would just trying to block/deflect the shot.
I would just like to remind everyone that the Q&A is NOT official, only the Game Manual is.
Incorrect.
Tem1514 Mentor
27-03-2016, 16:26
Incorrect.
The only time the Q&A answer becomes official is when it causes a team update to occur that causes the game manual to be changed. Not all Q&A answers cause team updates. Again please see 1.6 in the game manual.
GaryVoshol
27-03-2016, 16:28
Threads merged
Jon Stratis
27-03-2016, 16:44
The only time the Q&A answer becomes official is when it causes a team update to occur that causes the game manual to be changed. Not all Q&A answers cause team updates. Again please see 1.6 in the game manual.
I can tell you, from the perspective of an LRI, that I see the Q&A as official clarifications of the game manual. The rulings provided in the Q&A inform my own interpretation of the rules and the rulings I make at an event. While I do reference specific rules more often at events, I do pull out Q&A responses when explaining some rulings to teams.
The answers on there are official, they just aren't considered to be final. Final rulings come from the LRI and Head Ref.
Tem1514 Mentor
27-03-2016, 16:47
Threads merged
Gary,
Thank you for merging the threads.
Randall Thomas
Interpretations of the rules by the Q&A are official and LRI's and HR's will use them to make rulings. 1.6 says that Q&A answers do not "supercede" manual text, such as if they are contradictory. It does not say that answers which clarify and interpret the manual text are not official. 1.6 says answers "sometimes" result in team updates, it does not say they always do, or that they are not official and can be ignored if they don't. Not all answers require a manual update because not all answers are contradictory to the text. But all answers are official, whether or not they cause an update.
waialua359
29-03-2016, 15:45
Hi Glenn,
I'm not sure if the Head Ref was involved prior, but from what I witnessed (I forget which round), a field-side RI noticed that 359's bumpers had zip-ties around the bumpers and notified the LRI. The LRI checked the robot on the field and had the drive team remove the zip-ties since these aren't considered a rigid fastening system and aren't part of the legal bumper cross-section. I was on the field next to your robot when the zip-ties were removed and it was clear that the front corners were not very rigidly attached. I'm not familiar with your bumper fastening system, but it seemed like something must have broken or loosened during a previous match and the zip ties were added as a temporary fix. The LRI allowed 359 to play that match and required that the bumpers be more rigidly attached for the next match, which is when you added the wood screws. Maybe during that same match the Head Ref also noticed them sagging and also gave you a "warning," or maybe the Head Ref had noticed them sagging after the fastening system loosened and that's what prompted the zip ties, but either way, this does seem like an appropriate application of G19-1 (and as far as I know, you weren't fouled or disabled, just asked to fix it for the next match).
Sorry for not responding earlier, I just read this.
The zip ties on the sides of the bumper is our fault. One of my kids put them on for the sake of doing it which was not neccessary.
As for the corner in question, he did that because the corner in was somehow bent a little after a much earlier previous match and he used zipties to try and straighten them out. After being asked to secure it with screws, we did it in the heat of the moment because I didnt want to miss a match. I do still believe that the bumper was within the height requirements though. The robot passed reinspection.
Was it measured on the field?
I think it was more of a cause and effect seeing the zip ties.
Sperkowsky
29-03-2016, 15:54
Sorry for not responding earlier, I just read this.
The zip ties on the sides of the bumper is our fault. One of my kids put them on for the sake of doing it which was not neccessary.
As for the corner in question, he did that because the corner in was somehow bent a little after a much earlier previous match and he used zipties to try and straighten them out. After being asked to secure it with screws, we did it in the heat of the moment because I didnt want to miss a match. I do still believe that the bumper was within the height requirements though. The robot passed reinspection.
Was it measured on the field?
I think it was more of a cause and effect seeing the zip ties.
What doesn't make sense to me is why zip ties can not be used as a supplementary mounting system. Say you had 2 wood screws that were a little loose what is the problem with adding a few zip ties to help you out. The front of our 2015 off season bot was held to the drive train with zip ties held up fine through 5 quals and all the way through 3 final matches. The things are definitely strong enough in bulk to hold on a bumper.
What doesn't make sense to me is why zip ties can not be used as a supplementary mounting system. Say you had 2 wood screws that were a little loose what is the problem with adding a few zip ties to help you out. The front of our 2015 off season bot was held to the drive train with zip ties held up fine through 5 quals and all the way through 3 final matches. The things are definitely strong enough in bulk to hold on a bumper.
Zip ties are SPECIFICALLY not counted as a rigid fastening system (they're called "cable ties" in the manual as I recall).
Also, depending on the application, you could get called for "hard parts beyond 1". Either one of those two is grounds for a reinspection/repair.
IronicDeadBird
29-03-2016, 17:05
Zip ties are SPECIFICALLY not counted as a rigid fastening system (they're called "cable ties" in the manual as I recall).
Also, depending on the application, you could get called for "hard parts beyond 1". Either one of those two is grounds for a reinspection/repair.
Interesting note while the manual does not count them as a rigid fastening system, I have seen FTAs use them to great effect for patching field damage...
BIG SORRY ABOUT THE SALLY PORT!
Jon Stratis
29-03-2016, 17:11
Sorry for not responding earlier, I just read this.
The zip ties on the sides of the bumper is our fault. One of my kids put them on for the sake of doing it which was not neccessary.
As for the corner in question, he did that because the corner in was somehow bent a little after a much earlier previous match and he used zipties to try and straighten them out. After being asked to secure it with screws, we did it in the heat of the moment because I didnt want to miss a match. I do still believe that the bumper was within the height requirements though. The robot passed reinspection.
Was it measured on the field?
I think it was more of a cause and effect seeing the zip ties.
Please note that reinspection is NOT another full inspection. During reinspection, we don't measure bumpers, or check frame perimeter, etc. We specifically look at what had changed. In the case of an elims reinspection, this is based on weight of the robot and talking with the team. Just because you passed reinspection does NOT mean everything is 100% legal, and when it comes to bumpers, the Head Ref does have some say on the field as to their legality.
You would not believe the stuff I've found at champs on robots that had passed inspection and reinspection at 3 or more prior events...
bachster
29-03-2016, 18:28
Sorry for not responding earlier, I just read this.
The zip ties on the sides of the bumper is our fault. One of my kids put them on for the sake of doing it which was not neccessary.
As for the corner in question, he did that because the corner in was somehow bent a little after a much earlier previous match and he used zipties to try and straighten them out. After being asked to secure it with screws, we did it in the heat of the moment because I didnt want to miss a match. I do still believe that the bumper was within the height requirements though. The robot passed reinspection.
Was it measured on the field?
I think it was more of a cause and effect seeing the zip ties.
From my recollection, I think the concern from the LRI's perspective was more about the rigidity of the mounting and less about the height. I remember I had the impression that something must have broken or come loose on the normal mounting system because it seemed like the front corner(s) had some play in them, but I definitely didn't get a chance to look at it for long, and you're right, it could have partially been an effect of seeing the zip ties first. I can't speak for any feedback you might have gotten from the ref.
Also, depending on the application, you could get called for "hard parts beyond 1".
Correct. In this particular case they were around the whole bumper so they violated the "hard parts beyond 1" and the bumper cross-section from R21. I agree that supplementary zip-ties are likely better than nothing in a pinch, but R21-G does specifically call them out as not meeting the definition of "rigid fastening system."
Glenn, hopefully your team didn't leave with the impression that rules were applied incorrectly or unfairly. Thanks for being willing to make the quick modification!
Apologies for the extreme tangent to the thread. :)
waialua359
30-03-2016, 05:29
Please note that reinspection is NOT another full inspection. During reinspection, we don't measure bumpers, or check frame perimeter, etc. We specifically look at what had changed. In the case of an elims reinspection, this is based on weight of the robot and talking with the team. Just because you passed reinspection does NOT mean everything is 100% legal, and when it comes to bumpers, the Head Ref does have some say on the field as to their legality.
You would not believe the stuff I've found at champs on robots that had passed inspection and reinspection at 3 or more prior events...
Jon,
I totally get the whole reinspection part vs a regular inspection. From a quick visual, our bumpers are clearly not modified in anyway. I should have clarified that in my initial explanation.
waialua359
30-03-2016, 05:31
Glenn, hopefully your team didn't leave with the impression that rules were applied incorrectly or unfairly. Thanks for being willing to make the quick modification!
Apologies for the extreme tangent to the thread. :)
Oh no worries.
I had to smile and laugh at why my drive team operator put zip ties all over the robot bumpers.
While acknowledging the no holding bumpers on with zip ties ruling was completely proper, and was really the only ruling possible under the current rules... I have seen a lot of robots allowed to compete with bumpers that could have benefited by a couple of well placed zip ties. :]
The Yin Yang of this is the goal of getting all the robots on the field is sometimes in conflict with the goal that all robots be fully rule compliant.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.