Chief Delphi - Loophole in rule G39 and G43 for defense??? (Repost due to edits)

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)

- Rules/Strategy (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)

- - Loophole in rule G39 and G43 for defense??? (Repost due to edits) (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=141354)

Re: Loophole in rule G39 and G43 for defense??? (Repost due to edits)

Quote:

Team Update 02 will update G43 to clarify that ROBOTS on the same half of the FIELD as their ALLIANCE TOWER may not interfere with opponent ROBOTS traversing OUTER WORKS (regardless of direction). Our apologies for the confusion.

The next question is what constitutes "interfering."

Would blocking the shot of a robot that is traversing the outer works be considered interfering with it?

What about parking in front of that robot to block its view of the goal?

Re: Loophole in rule G39 and G43 for defense??? (Repost due to edits)

Quote:

Originally Posted by DWNichols (Post 1523646)

Multi-tasking isn't an issue for me. I'd love to see a robot design that can accurately shoot while travelling over an outer defense. But, if you are just sitting on, or your bumper is over, a defense, and your drive train is not driving, are you "traversing"? That's the important question.

As-defined, yes. Whether we like it or not, it's pretty specific on what determines a violation of the rule.

Take the act of shooting out of it. If a robot were actually attempting to traverse, but paused, there could be any number of legitimate traversing-specific examples that we could go tit-for-tat over. What if they were low on air for an actuator, or were waiting for the neutral zone to become unblocked, or the coach told the drivers to pause while a decision was made about which one to go over.

Re: Loophole in rule G39 and G43 for defense??? (Repost due to edits)

Another relevant question answered. Additionally, Team Update 2 changed the definition of Outer Works. I think it's pretty clear that they intended the Outer Works to be a shooting safe zone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Q532

Q. "A robot carrying a boulder crosses a defense into their opponents' courtyard. They then move back such that a part of its bumpers are within the opponent’s outer works while their robot is still in contact with the courtyard carpet. They attempt to line up a shot, but an opponent contacts them. Does the opponent incur a G43 penalty?"

A. This situation does demonstrate a violation of G43. Per G43: "A ROBOT is considered traversing the opponent’s OUTER WORKS if any part of its BUMPERS are within the opponent’s OUTER WORKS." Even if you are shooting a BOULDER, you would be protected by G43 if your BUMPERS are within the OUTER WORKS.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Team Update 2

OUTER WORKS: an infinitely tall volume bordered by, but not including, the GUARDRAIL, the SECRET PASSAGE, and the
bottom edges of its PLATFORM Ramps

Re: Loophole in rule G39 and G43 for defense??? (Repost due to edits)

2012 called, they want their Key back.

The windows that defense can be played in for this game are getting small. There's only a narrow portion of the Neutral Zone that can be policed without risking a G43 for the opposing robot having their front bumpers in the Outer Works.