Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

Apologies for the inflammatory title, but I predict that this Q&A response 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?

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

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?

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

Why would they think this is right?

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

we cant shoot in the high goal but we will just put a camera pointing up on the robot for memes now

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

Slippery slopes are slippery.

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

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.

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

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.

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

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?

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

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...

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

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.

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

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.

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

People are inferring a broad interpretation from past GDC responses.

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

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.

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

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...

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

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

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

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

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

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.

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

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.

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

That'll then go on how the LRI or Head Ref interprets the response by the GDC.

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

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.

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

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.

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

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.

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

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

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

Say goodbye to cheesecaking blockers on second picks.

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

RIP Cheesecake :(

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

Also say goodbye to any kind of defense against outerworks shooters.

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

Defensive play just moved to the neutral zone....

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

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).

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

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.

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

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.

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

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.

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

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.

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

Meanwhile I'm over here with with my completely see-through poly-carbonate blocker prototype laughing.

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

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.

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

You can take my blocker... but you can never take my cheesecake!

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

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.

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

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.

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

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.

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

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.

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

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?

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

Chief Delphi's Greatest Hits vol. 47: Overreactions to Q&A responses

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

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.

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

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.

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

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.

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

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.

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

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

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

The response doesnt say "proper functioning" it says "sensing capabilities".

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

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.



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?

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now 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.

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

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.

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

It has always been there, people just haven't been playing it.

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

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.

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

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.

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

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.

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

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 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.

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

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 :)

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

You are far too trusting in the ability of random volunteers to exercise restraint and common sense when making their rulings.

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

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)

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

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.

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

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.

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

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.

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

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.

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

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.

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

This is just like pre-crime in Minority Report. Is a shot unblockable if said shot hasn't actually been taken yet?

-Brando

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

Except in this instance, Rules for Intent(even supposed intent) have been laid out.

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

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

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

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.

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

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.

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

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.

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

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.

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

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

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

Sadly, that's what this Q&A opens up.

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

Your first sentence is a logical fallacy. Just because something didn't do X does not mean it did not intend to do X.

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

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.

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

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:

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

I think Sean is correct.

The pertinent tournament rules are G7, T12, T14, T15, and the paragraph quoted below from 5.5.2:

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.

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

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?

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

But your box tubing confuses my camera algorithm! And blocks my rangefinder, throwing off my shot! /argument_to_head_ref

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

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.

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

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.

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

I did say ALMOST impossible :p

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

See Jon Stratis' post right beneath yours.

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

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.

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

G7-A gives them permission to disable a robot for not being in compliance with all robot rules.

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

I suppose if I were trying to make an argument for the disablement of a robot, I would reference G7-A.

Sniped by Thad House.

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

Which is ultimately determined by the LRI, as the LRI has the ultimate authority on the legality of all robots/components/mechanisms.

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

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.

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

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.

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

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.

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

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.

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

Just cheesehole them enough for cameras to be able to see through them.

The solution to a cheese problem is always more cheese.

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

Are there any teams from Switzerland?

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now 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.

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

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.

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

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.

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

I guess everyone should go stock up on nylon fishing net for cheesecaking purposes :rolleyes:

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

And if you already have it because you're from Minnesota? We had too much fishing line before it was cool :cool:

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

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.

Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal
 

we do have teams from Wisconsin, at least :v