![]() |
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? |
Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
Quote:
|
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) |
Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
Quote:
|
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...
|
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.. |
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?
|
Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
Quote:
|
Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
Quote:
|
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. |
Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
Quote:
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. |
Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
Quote:
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. |
Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
Quote:
|
Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
Quote:
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). |
Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
Quote:
|
Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
Quote:
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. |
Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
Quote:
|
Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
Quote:
|
Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
Follow up Q&A on this
Quote:
BTW I am pretty sure you can't use Lexan your bumpers, which this thread was originally abouts. |
Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
Quote:
|
Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
Quote:
|
Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
Quote:
|
Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
Quote:
|
Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
Quote:
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. |
Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
Quote:
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. ;) |
Q955 has just been posted clarifying rule Q953 https://frc-qa.firstinspires.org//Qu...t-violate-r9-c
|
Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
Quote:
Defense Apocalypse Cancelled |
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?
|
Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
Quote:
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. |
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. |
Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
What's the record for the longest Q&A chain? Can this break it?
|
Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
Quote:
|
Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
Quote:
-Mike |
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.) |
Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
Quote:
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). |
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. |
Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
Quote:
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 |
Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
![]() |
Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
Q & A 959 has been answered:
Quote:
|
Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
Quote:
|
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. |
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
|
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. |
Re: Blocking vision/tracking cams "rule"
Quote:
|
Re: Blocking vision/tracking cams "rule"
Quote:
|
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. |
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. |
Re: Blocking vision/tracking cams "rule"
Quote:
|
Re: Blocking vision/tracking cams "rule"
Quote:
|
Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
Threads merged
|
Re: Blocking vision/tracking cams "rule"
Quote:
The answers on there are official, they just aren't considered to be final. Final rulings come from the LRI and Head Ref. |
Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
Quote:
Thank you for merging the threads. Randall Thomas |
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.
|
Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
Quote:
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. |
Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
Quote:
BIG SORRY ABOUT THE SALLY PORT! |
Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
Quote:
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... |
Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
Quote:
Quote:
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. :) |
Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
Quote:
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. |
Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
Quote:
I had to smile and laugh at why my drive team operator put zip ties all over the robot bumpers. |
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