Chief Delphi

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   Rules/Strategy (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Your tall opaque robot is now illegal (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=146094)

asid61 22-03-2016 20:53

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 
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

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by asid61 (Post 1561519)
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

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 
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

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jared Russell (Post 1561524)
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.

IronicDeadBird 22-03-2016 21:47

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 
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

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 
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

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 
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?

EmileH 22-03-2016 22:47

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by IronicDeadBird (Post 1561536)
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

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jared Russell (Post 1561524)
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

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 
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

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis (Post 1561439)
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

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by waialua359 (Post 1561649)
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

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nuttyman54 (Post 1561433)
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

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by waialua359 (Post 1561649)
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

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Line (Post 1561650)
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

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by waialua359 (Post 1561649)
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

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by PayneTrain (Post 1561689)
Sounds like that person is great at parties

I know measuring bumpers is a favorite party game for me. :cool:

FrankJ 23-03-2016 08:47

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis (Post 1561693)
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.

FrankJ 23-03-2016 08:59

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 
Follow up Q&A on this
Quote:

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

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Line (Post 1561650)
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.

Libby K 23-03-2016 09:10

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan Dognaux (Post 1561727)
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.

FrankJ 23-03-2016 09:25

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Libby K (Post 1561730)
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

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by FrankJ (Post 1561739)
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.

Libby K 23-03-2016 09:43

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris is me (Post 1561746)
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.

FrankJ 23-03-2016 09:50

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Libby K (Post 1561755)
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//Qu...t-violate-r9-c

Zebra_Fact_Man 23-03-2016 10:30

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mman1506 (Post 1561778)
Q955 has just been posted clarifying rule Q953 https://frc-qa.firstinspires.org//Qu...t-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

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 
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

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelHaughney (Post 1561785)
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

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 
I have submitted another follow up 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

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 
What's the record for the longest Q&A chain? Can this break it?

aldaeron 23-03-2016 12:43

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery (Post 1561850)
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

Michael Corsetto 23-03-2016 13:15

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by aldaeron (Post 1561847)
I have submitted another follow up 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

rsisk 23-03-2016 13:30

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 
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

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by waialua359 (Post 1561649)
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).

Oblarg 23-03-2016 13:45

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 
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

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Oblarg (Post 1561922)
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

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

Libby K 24-03-2016 09:51

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 
Q & A 959 has been answered:

Quote:

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

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Libby K (Post 1562424)
Q & A 959 has been answered:

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

Blocking vision/tracking cams "rule"
 
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

Re: Blocking vision/tracking cams "rule"
 
If you have not done so already, you will want to read through this thread: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=146094

cbale2000 27-03-2016 15:23

Re: Blocking vision/tracking cams "rule"
 
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

Re: Blocking vision/tracking cams "rule"
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by cbale2000 (Post 1563619)
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.

dodar 27-03-2016 15:54

Re: Blocking vision/tracking cams "rule"
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dubiousSwain (Post 1563620)
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

Re: Blocking vision/tracking cams "rule"
 
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

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 
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.

jspatz1 27-03-2016 16:22

Re: Blocking vision/tracking cams "rule"
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tem1514 Mentor (Post 1563631)
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

Re: Blocking vision/tracking cams "rule"
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jspatz1 (Post 1563643)
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

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 
Threads merged

Jon Stratis 27-03-2016 16:44

Re: Blocking vision/tracking cams "rule"
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tem1514 Mentor (Post 1563646)
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

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol (Post 1563647)
Threads merged

Gary,

Thank you for merging the threads.

Randall Thomas

jspatz1 27-03-2016 16:49

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 
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

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bachster (Post 1561913)
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

Quote:

Originally Posted by waialua359 (Post 1564780)
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.

EricH 29-03-2016 15:58

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sperkowsky (Post 1564793)
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

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by EricH (Post 1564797)
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

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by waialua359 (Post 1564780)
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

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by waialua359 (Post 1564780)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricH (Post 1564797)
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

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis (Post 1564848)
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

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bachster (Post 1564887)

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.

FrankJ 30-03-2016 12:18

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 
1 Attachment(s)
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.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 18:32.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi