[Russ Beavis]

Gary,
Regarding the distinction between CAPABLE and NOT INTENDED TO with respect to having balls intrude by more than 3" and whether such capability (regardless of intention) is a violation of rule <R19> (see below) - this sounds like a great question for the GDC and the formal Q&A. When I read the rules and crafted the checklist task, I interpreted the rule such that simply having the ability to intrude by > 3" was a violation of <R19>.

It can get even fuzzier - I saw a few robots at Suffield Shakedown with "squishy" barriers around their robot's lower perimeter (eg rubber bands or belts). It was very easy for the robot to "hop" over a ball and trap it underneath (even though, under normal operation, the "squishy" barrier did a fine job of keep balls from being lodged under the robot). In this case, I would have been tempted to allow the robot design to pass inspection and left enforcement of the (hopefully rare) ball entrapments to the referees.

A formal Q&A thread sounds like an appropriate action to take.

Russ

<R19> ROBOTS must be designed so that in normal operation BALLS cannot extend more than 3 inches inside
a) the FRAME PERIMETER below the level of the BUMPER ZONE (see Figure 8-5),
b) a MECHANISM or feature designed or used to deflect BALLS in a controlled manner that is above the level of the BUMPER ZONE.