Quote:
Originally posted by Jnadke
That's a very poor analogy. The tall robot has no option of where to go, therefore it's pinning. T3 can simply lift its arms up. They are in that position by choice, not by chance.
The question isn't whether they can be beat. Of course they can be beat. Nobody is unbeatable. That has been illustrated last year. The question at hand is whether or not they are in direct violation of the rules. I am sure many other teams have thought of this type of design, but went against it.
|
It's still very gray to me. Let's take a look at five examples.
Robot 1: Is 25 inches high due to it's design and function, the team couldn't make it any lower. They decided going under the bar wasn't a big deal to them. The contact with the bar is not by design and it is incidental.
Robot 2: Is 25 inches high, with arms that extend out making a barrier. Their design has nothing that grabs onto the bar, but due to their height, you can't push them under it. The contact with the bar is intentional but incidental.
Robot 3: Is 13 inches high, but has a cylinder that extends to increase it's height. The cylinder has no other purpose but to prevent another robot from pushing it under the bar. The contact with the bar is by design AND intentional.
Robot 4: Is 13 inches high and has an arm used to pick up boxes. When the arm is extended it increases the height of the robot and prevents it from being pushed under the bar. If the arm is lowered, the robot is free to move under the bar. The contact with the bar is not by design and is incidental.
Robot 5: Is 13 inches high and has nothing to contact the bar at any time.
Robot 1 is a legal design. FIRST can't DQ a team because they chose not to go under the bar. Robot 1, isn't necessarily designed to block another robot, but in a match, it may have to.
Robot 2 is also legal. The robot was designed to block other robots. Because of it's height, the robot can not be pushed under the bar. It is not illegal to make a robot that can not clear the bar.
Robot 3 is illegal. The cylinder was designed to interact with the bar.
Robot 4 is not illegal, but if the arm is up, it can not be pushed under the bar. Does a team HAVE to let another robot push it around? My guess is this team will not be DQ if it used it's box picking arm to prevent it from being pushed under the bar. That is unless the arm itself had some kind of lip or hook to help it hold on. Then that would be illegal.
Robot 5 is of course legal.
I think T3's robot falls into the gray area between Robot 2 and Robot 3. If the bar didn't exist, then T3's design would be perfectly legal, but not quite as effective. This is definitely one for the judges. I understand those teams that see this as a violation. But even though T3 knows another robot will push them into the bar. Their contact is intended by design, but incidental. If nobody pushes them, then they are not interacting with the field. I think the rule is put in place to prevent damage to the field. I don't see T3's design as posing any particular kind of damage threat. T3's strategy is no different than building a robot 13 inches high and then welding a 5 inch bar on top just so another robot can't push it under. The only difference is T3 blocks the entire play field.