Legality of this idea?
 

I was wondering if this idea would be legal or not according to this year's rules. The idea was to be able to give the robot certain commands (such as shoot) with QR codes during autonomous mode. The idea branched off other idea that other teams did such as 254 in Cheesy Vision where they gave the robot the okay to shoot based on the position of their hand. I think the rules opposing this idea this year are G14 and maybe G16 (?) My question if you guys think this would be legal or not this coming week.

Re: Legality of this idea?
 

This would be covered by G14.

If the driver was showing the QR code then you would be in indirect interaction with the driver station.

Re: Legality of this idea?
 

G14 would also seem to apply if a human player in the spy box was displaying (showing) the QR code to the robot.

Re: Legality of this idea?
 

Only if the QR code is placed during the setup period, BEFORE autonomous begins. If presented during autonomous or teleop, it would be considered a signaling device.

Re: Legality of this idea?
 

So if your team uniform is composed of a bunch of inconspicuous QR codes...

Re: Legality of this idea?
 

Could you please further define "placed" in this statement? Where/how/etc would a QR code be placed to be legal?

Re: Legality of this idea?
 

In my understanding, "interaction" would require some sort of non-static signal. (such as switching between two QR codes to indicate left or right).

I doubt this would ever be done, but I think it would be legal to set up a QR code somewhere that does not move or change during autonomous. This could be used as a way to tell the robot which autonomous program to run. As long as the code remains static during the Autonomous period, the only communication method was put in place before the Auto period.

FLC?
First Lawyer's Challenge. Thanks to NE'champs :D

Re: Legality of this idea?
 

This is about what I had in mind. That is, you placed the QR on the robot where the camera can read it, or perhaps on your camera pole for the robot to read. It would be functionally equivalent to a DIP switch on the robot or a driver station control that is set prior to "Drivers behind the line!"

Re: Legality of this idea?
 

Yeah, we have already determined it as a no go. I just wanted to confirm it with you guys. Looking at the 2014 manual the rule is worded differently (it's G16 in this manual.) It doesn't say "indirect."

Shame in one way and good in another. Not in the spirit of autonomous, but it could of came in handy in some situations. Thanks though!

Re: Legality of this idea?
 

I believe you'd have to go back to 2012 (the last year with a HYBRID period rather than AUTONOMOUS) to allow any interaction between humans and the robots in the first few seconds of a match. The prohibition has always (OK, 2013-present) been constructive (built up of specific rules) rather than generic, so perhaps you can find a loophole that no one did at the time.

Re: Legality of this idea?
 

2014 had a hybrid period courtesy of Cheezy Vision. 1114 used if for their goalie.

Re: Legality of this idea?
 

Well... kind of. 1114 did not use Cheesy Vision, although a number of other teams (including Team 20) did. 1114, I believe, had a Kinect on their drivers station that they signaled to.

Re: Legality of this idea?
 

"Hey, can I scan that QR code on your shirt?"
"Uh...no. That's not a QR code, it's just a coincidence that our shirts look like one..."

Re: Legality of this idea?
 

*Scans QR code* displays the string " shoot"

Re: Legality of this idea?
 

OK, looking back, the 2014 auto rules were pretty basic and left more holes than I recalled. While not given a specific rule/foul number, this still was against the first line of page 3:
There were only 3 auto rules that year:

• G15, stating that robots had to stay on their half of the field, or within the goalie zone as appropriate
• G16, "TEAM members..must remain behind the STARTING LINE..
• G17 During AUTO, any control devices worn or held by the DRIVERS must be disconnected from the OPERATOR CONSOLE.

Going back and looking at those rules, the truly scary item was if G18 from 2014 would have been brought into 2016:
From the way this is written, the technical foul would be applied to the robot being supported. That is, when one robot was in the process of tipping over another robot through uneven (but legal) bumper-to-bumper contact, the robot being tipped could (if the support were repeated or extended) be found guilty of a technical foul.

Further, robots on the same alliance which tortuga each other through forming a "tent" would both be guilty of a technical foul. That would have been adding insult to injury.