Quote:
Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery
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.
|
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?