View Single Post
  #50   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 22-03-2016, 15:24
NickE's Avatar
NickE NickE is offline
_
FRC #0254 (The Cheesy Poofs)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Rookie Year: 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 620
NickE has a reputation beyond reputeNickE has a reputation beyond reputeNickE has a reputation beyond reputeNickE has a reputation beyond reputeNickE has a reputation beyond reputeNickE has a reputation beyond reputeNickE has a reputation beyond reputeNickE has a reputation beyond reputeNickE has a reputation beyond reputeNickE has a reputation beyond reputeNickE has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karthik View Post
I would have agreed with this until I saw Mike Corsetto's description of an incident at CVR.

Back to your interpretation (and my initial one as well):

Here's a device that was intended to block shots, not intended to interfere with sensors, that was forced to be modified. Seems like some head referees are interpreting this rule to mean that any device which blocks a camera, despite the intent, is 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.

Last edited by NickE : 22-03-2016 at 15:33.