Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tristan Lall
As described, they're not actually legal (if they "might push against another robot"), but that's an issue for inspectors to catch before the robot competes. The penalties (on the other hand) require interference during the match; if that occurs, it's up to the referee to make the call. Basically, there are two separate issues, enforced by different officials; if one fails to enforce their half of the rule, the other half of the rule is still applicable.
188 wasn't competing last weekend; Steve was in NJ as an observer. It looks like the referee is invoking <G43>, which allows the head ref to take advice from any source, even Steve. Besides, even if he did violate <G42>, there's just about nothing that can be done about it, absent a competing team....
|
<R04> "Wedge” robots are not allowed. Robots must be designed so that interaction with other robots results in
pushing rather than tipping or lifting. Neither offensive nor defensive wedges are allowed. All parts of a
robot between 0 and 8.5 inches from the ground (the top of the bumper zone – see Rule <R35>) that might
push against another robot must be within 10 degrees of vertical.
Devices deployed outside the robot's
footprint should be designed to avoid wedging.
If a mechanism or an appendage (a ball harvester, for
example) becomes a wedge that interferes with other robots,
penalties, disabling, or disqualification can occur
depending on the severity of the infraction.
Now as you know Tristan and I love to argue rules and wording. This is my interpretation. As for speaking to the ref, it was after a match where people were dumping balls. The head ref had already ruled about the legality of these robots. I did NOT have any influence or input on the issue. I believe that the talk was later on on Friday. The ref was calling as per the head refs ruling. As you know also, that many people talk about rules and ideas and interpretations during events. This is not new or unGP.