Request: Picture from camera on pole in driverstation

[Lij2015]

It shouldn't matter if the refs deem it unsafe, if the Q&A has clarified its allowed that should be the ruling.

[cgmv123]

Originally Posted by Lij2015

It shouldn't matter if the refs deem it unsafe, if the Q&A has clarified its allowed that should be the ruling.

Q&A saying it's allowed* doesn't matter if it's unsafe. Safety considerations always overrule anything Q&A says.

*The Q&A ruling even said camera poles should be designed and used with safety in mind.

[Gregor]

Originally Posted by SamM

From what we were told at Orlando, we would be allowed to use ours, but would receive a foul if it deflected a boulder back onto the field.

Under what rule did they justify that?

[AllenGregoryIV]

It was also discussed by the LRI's on Tuesday night, specifically suction cup mounting to the polycarbonate and that was also ruled legal. I would hope HQ would come out with something about what is and isn't safe seeing as this is being enforced very differently at different events.

[billbo911]

Having seen how ridiculous and, IMHO dangerous, this has become first hand, I truly hope a limit is put in place. I do see the tactical advantage they provide.

My suggestion is, set the limit no higher than the top of the tower.

You will see everything you need to see, but the safety level is well within an acceptable range.

[Tom Line]

Get rid of them entirely and quickly please. One more pain in the neck to drag around, set up, delay matches, and go flying if a ball is mis fired.

[Gregor]

Originally Posted by Tom Line

Get rid of them entirely and quickly please. One more pain in the neck to drag around, set up, delay matches, and go flying if a ball is mis fired.

Multiple events have run with these with no reports of those concerns.

[SenorZ]

Originally Posted by Gregor

Multiple events have run with these with no reports of those concerns.

If there is a reasonable limit is put in place to avoid a real potential for a safety hazard would you refute it because no one has been hurt yet?

[billbo911]

This is how ridiculous it has become. Tell me there is a good reason for this.
It is literally becoming about who's is bigger, not about gaining a tactical advantage.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Gregor

Multiple events have run with these with no reports of those concerns.

There are maybe a couple dozen teams in FRC who have used them so far. Hardly a sufficient sample to be using empirical evidence to support claims they are safe.

[z_beeblebrox]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

There are maybe a couple dozen teams in FRC who have used them so far. Hardly a sufficient sample to be using empirical evidence to support claims they are safe.

Usually, the burden is on inspectors and referees to prove that a robot is unsafe, not on teams to prove that it is safe. Why should the poles be handled differently?

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by z_beeblebrox

Usually, the burden is on inspectors and referees to prove that a robot is unsafe, not on teams to prove that it is safe. Why should the poles be handled differently?

I'm not claiming the burden should be any different, or that these poles are illegal. I am simply refuting the logic that of "nobody got hurt somewhere else, it must be safe."

Further still, I don't agree with your premise. The burden is definitely on the teams to prove their designs are safe. For example, no inspector is going to pass a team with a unknown pneumatic component unless the team provides documentation it meets the minimum pressure requirements. Similarly, teams will be failed inspection for sharp edges/corners, even if they have yet to cause a safety or field damage issue.

[cgmv123]

Originally Posted by z_beeblebrox

Usually, the burden is on inspectors and referees to prove that a robot is unsafe, not on teams to prove that it is safe.

You don't have to explain to an inspector why every single element of your robot is perfectly safe, but if they see something they don't like, they will want an explanation.

[Boe]

Just gonna leave this here, I'd love to see what the field looks like from the camera.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by billbo911

This is how ridiculous it has become. Tell me there is a good reason for this.
It is literally becoming about who's is bigger, not about gaining a tactical advantage.

I don't know why the GDC ruled them legal, but a stool not legal, but there is an advantage. A camera at tower level is totally useless. The benefit is in seeing over the defenses and seeing balls up against the far side of the outerworks. That's our pole you're referring to and while it is amusing to make jokes about whose pole is bigger, that's how tall it needs to be to see those balls against the outerworks.