Camcorder at driver's station

[chrisw957]

At our regional, one of our drivers used a handheld camcorder to video several of our matches. It wasn't connected to our driver's station laptop, it didn't have any sort of wireless transmitter, it wasn't on a 20 foot extension pole, it didn't have any sort of lighting. The student with the camcorder was one of our three designated drivers. It was not a cellphone being used as a camcorder.

This was fine for several rounds, but eventually one of the judges decided is wasn't allowed. We didn't question this decision, as it wasn't something that was critical for us. But I could tell that the seemingly arbitrary decision was something that bothered the student.

Looking at the rules now, I still don't understand how one of the drivers using a handheld camcorder could have been an issue. At the time I thought we should just plug it into the USB port of the laptop and declare it part of our operator console. Would it be allowed then?

Can someone explain the ruling and the logic behind it?

[EricH]

We'll start with a point of reference: Judges wear blue polo shirts and have nothing to do with decisions of legality on the field. You actually want the referees in their striped shirts. Or, more likely, the head ref in a black-and-yellow shirt.

Now, on to your question.

You may not be aware of this, but in addition to the Game and Robot rules, there are the Tournament rules, Section 5 of the Game Manual. And what you seem to have run afoul of is Section 5.5.9, T26-1, the Special Equipment rules.

In part, these read:

The only equipment, provided it does not block visibility for FIELD STEWARDS or audience members or jam or interfere with the remote sensing capabilities of another Team, including vision systems, acoustic range finders, sonars, infrared proximity detectors, etc. (e.g. including imagery that, to a reasonably astute observer, mimics the Vision Guides), that may be brought in to the CASTLE are as follows:

(emphasis mine, for clarity)

After that, there's a list of items, none of which is "camera not part of Operator Console" or anything that I could reasonably consider to include that. I would consider that the refs would have good reason to advise you not to bring that anymore, under that rule. (The options are essentially to not start the match, to remove the camcorder, or to have the camcorder as part of the operator console.) Whether the rule makes sense for camcorders is up for debate--though if that particular device happened to use infrared to auto-focus, I could see the part about "not interfere with remote sensing capabilities of another team" kicking in.


For future reference, you'll more likely want to have the camcorder in the hands of whoever on your team has the team media pass, if one is given out at your regional. They should be able to be on the sideline (or... close enough. I mean, there is a limit to how close they'll be allowed to get, for their own safety).

[marshall]

I'm going to hijack your thread and echo my request for more reasonable rules around wearables and the like because I feel like it will help with this problem as well. Sorry to hear you got denied but glad you were able to get some footage.

What data were you trying to collect with the video? How often were you looking at the video?

[Sperkowsky]

I don't see a reason for not allowing a camcorder on the field and If I were you I probably would have taken that up with the head ref. Remember the refs are just volunteers and just humans they make mistakes with rule interpretations too. If you care enough you might as well get a final ruling from the head ref.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Sperkowsky

I don't see a reason for not allowing a camcorder on the field...

How are you interpreting <T26-1> as not being such a reason?

[Sperkowsky]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

How are you interpreting <T26-1> as not being such a reason?

The way I see it is, if that camcorder sat on the driver station table during autonomous and was picked up during the match it was a part of the driver station.

You can also argue that it is a "devices used solely for the purpose of planning or tracking strategy"

[cbale2000]

Originally Posted by Sperkowsky

You can also argue that it is a "devices used solely for the purpose of planning or tracking strategy"

Basically this.

Originally Posted by 5.5.9 Special Equipment Rules T26-1

F. devices used solely for the purpose of planning or tracking strategy provided they meet all of
the following conditions:

i. do not connect or attach to the OPERATOR CONSOLE
ii. do not connect or attach to the FIELD or ARENA
iii. do not connect or attach to another ALLIANCE member
iv. do not communicate with anything or anyone outside of the ARENA.
v. do not include any form of enabled wireless electronic communication (e.g. radios, walkie-talkies, cell phones, Bluetooth communications, Wi-Fi, etc.)
vi. do not in any way affect the outcome of a MATCH, other than by allowing PLAYERS to plan or track strategy for the purposes of communication of that strategy to other ALLIANCE members.

While not a camcorder, we've had our drivers wear GoPros on several occasions (and have seen many other teams do this as well) and never been approached about it. Perhaps the head ref confused your driver with the camera for someone with a media pass?

[JesseK]

TLDR: Turns out the student in the OP's post was perfectly legal this year. The scenario presented seems like a specific case where the student could have used some advisement at the event, and then eventually approached the judge with findings. Most judges who speak up about a technicality do know better than kids 9/10 of the time, but they are also (in my experience) very welcoming to be corrected when politely presented with fact-based evidence.

I think the strongest argument is for allowing the camera is for "tracking strategy", but only if the camera is held the entire time. A ref could easily say that any non-official 'thing' on the D/S table is part of the OPERATOR CONSOLE since often joysticks & gamepads are left on the D/S table. It would then violate T-26-F-i if used as a strategy device because it is then considered as part of the OPERATOR CONSOLE. And yet it can't be part of the OPERATOR CONSOLE in the OP's case, because that (weirdly enough) is not allowed either (see #3 below).

T26-1 is pretty explicit in what is and isn't allowed, and the candidates in T26-1 which may allow a camera are the OPERATOR CONSOLE and a "strategy device". OPERATOR CONSOLE is not defined in the Glossary. It comes from the robot rules [R91] - [R96]. R92, in a hypoxia-inducing (and therefore memory-inhibiting) appositive phrase, defines what OPERATOR CONSOLE actually means. I've bolded it here:

Originally Posted by R92

The OPERATOR CONSOLE, the set of COMPONENTS and MECHANISMS used by the DRIVERS and/or HUMAN PLAYER to relay commands to the ROBOT, must include a graphic display to present the Driver Station disgnostic information. It must be positioned within the OPERATOR CONSOLE so that the screen display can be clearly seen during Inspection and in a MATCH.

1. To be considered part of the OPERATOR CONSOLE, a camera must deliver its data to the D/S Laptop and therefore closing the loop on operator controls. This is why pole-mounted camera feeds were legal, irrespective of strategy.
2. To be considered part of strategy without violating T-26-F-i, the camera must never be considered part of the OPERATOR CONSOLE for the duration of the match (including auton). Thus we can conclude that it must be attached to one of the drivers the whole time.
3. A camera that is hard-mounted to the driver's station laptop yet does not display its feed to the display is in violation of T26-1-F-i, given R92.

Seems like we need a rule update if we want #3 allowed. Also, fun fact: given R92 verbiage, there is never a reason for teams to take up more than 60" of space with 2 joysticks and a laptop. I know for a fact that many teams were outside of this bound after joysticks were set on the D/S table :-/

[EricH]

Ah, but there's one problem with that argument, Jesse. (Besides the previously mentioned confusion of referees and judges.)

Can't use any footage from that camera for promotional film, no way no how. Because...

Then it's not SOLELY for tracking STRATEGY!

(I would also note that "for the purposes of communicating that strategy to other ALLIANCE members" is going to be really interesting--kind of hard to use the camera info in this match, for some reason. But does that part of the rule include future alliance members?)

Wearable cameras could be considered as clothing, or clothing accessories (reasonable decorative items?), and thus legal for obvious reasons.

You'll notice that I'm really pushing the rules to the letter here. I agree, this is a gray area. Wouldn't be the first time someone's pushed the gray areas a bit and gotten called by the GDC or officials by using some serious rule-interpreting... And I can't say that I'm not sympathetic to the teams here.


What I think would solve this would be for the GDC to specifically call out cameras as being illegal, OR, specifically call out cameras as legal provided that any wireless is off. I rather suspect that the latter would be the way to go.

Someone want to remember to ask Q&A next season? I think this would be a good one. Or maybe ask Frank before the season.

[Sperkowsky]

Originally Posted by EricH

Ah, but there's one problem with that argument, Jesse. (Besides the previously mentioned confusion of referees and judges.)

Can't use any footage from that camera for promotional film, no way no how. Because...

Then it's not SOLELY for tracking STRATEGY!

(I would also note that "for the purposes of communicating that strategy to other ALLIANCE members" is going to be really interesting--kind of hard to use the camera info in this match, for some reason. But does that part of the rule include future alliance members?)

Wearable cameras could be considered as clothing, or clothing accessories (reasonable decorative items?), and thus legal for obvious reasons.

You'll notice that I'm really pushing the rules to the letter here. I agree, this is a gray area. Wouldn't be the first time someone's pushed the gray areas a bit and gotten called by the GDC or officials by using some serious rule-interpreting... And I can't say that I'm not sympathetic to the teams here.


What I think would solve this would be for the GDC to specifically call out cameras as being illegal, OR, specifically call out cameras as legal provided that any wireless is off. I rather suspect that the latter would be the way to go.

Someone want to remember to ask Q&A next season? I think this would be a good one. Or maybe ask Frank before the season.

Cameras being called legal would be in firsts best interest. They don't provide any competitive advantage and create promotional material.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Sperkowsky

Cameras being called legal would be in firsts best interest. They don't provide any competitive advantage and create promotional material.

Precisely--the one condition would have to be that one of your drive team is holding it, or it's attached to the operator console somehow. Don't want a loose camera around.

The two problems I can see are safety (whoever has the camera can't focus on the match properly, most likely--unless it's a GoPro or similar, which is mostly what folks would bring anyways) and operator concentration (see safety).

Otherwise, your media team member gets the camera, and doesn't enter the carpet (the usual "safety boundary" during the match)--which is just about exactly how it goes these days.