Quote:
Originally Posted by Jared341
QUESTIONS:
Does it meet all of the required criteria to be scored as a fully supported robot? I believe so.
Does it break any other rules? I do not believe so. The robot is not grabbing/grappling/grasping any field structure. The bumpers appear to be legal.
Is this what the GDC intended? I don't know, but I have submitted a Q&A question (albeit one with a couple of typos, sorry GDC!) in order to find out.
How many teams are planning on exploiting this? We'll find out. I am sure it is nonzero. My team is not one of them; we didn't see the loophole until we had already designed and built a shooter tower that is far taller than 8".
|
Jared, I have done similar research on the subject over the last week and here is what I've found.
-A robot in contact with the polycarbonate ball deflector and no other surface is indeed 'Fully supported' by the bridge.
-I don't believe that this robot would break any other rules as it is passively interacting with the field structure. I guess one could argue that the act of wedging oneself between the bridge and the ball deflector is some sort of 'grasp or grapple' or other method of attachment, but I doubt that'll hold true.
-I'm not sure if this is what the GDC intended. With their clear lack of a response to your Q&A, I'd imagine that they're having a lot of internal discussion as to whether or not this is in the spirit of the rules. If this strategy remains legal, I can see Robots with just drivetrains becoming hot commodities for those who know how to exploit this rule.
In any case, a Robot built to exploit this loop hole may struggle during Quals if it's only goal is to balance the bridge. The TRUE game breaker would be a robot that could play the first minute and forty five seconds of the game well and then wedge itself under the bridge for an essentially effortless bonus. I'm not sure what kind of wizard would build that robot, or if they'd be sane after doing so.