Team Update 16 (2016)

[Jeffrafa]

Originally Posted by Drakxii

If refs see it this way I don't have a problem with the rule.

Unfortunately the rule could also be read that fouls can be called if both teams are touching a boulder that is on the middle line, even if neither bot enters the volume above the midline.

If neither robot enters the volume of the midline, then G13 has not been broken, plain and simple. The revised description of the consequences for a violation does not effect the basic rule (breaking the mid-line volume).

I can't find the video of it, but I saw this happen at a week 1 event - a red robot drove across the midline and pushed a stationary blue robot several inches transitively through a boulder (no direct robot contact). Only 1 foul was called due to how the rule had been written. I was a ref in week 2, and we discussed this scenario prior. We decided since R13 did not mention transitive contact, we would enforce it the same way as was done in week 1. I'm glad to see the loophole closed, as it preserves the intent of the violation.

[GDB]

I'll be honest, a lot of teams were not just doing this because 254 or 1678 were using overhead cameras on poles. Some teams at the Arizona North Regional were doing it because they specifically knew there was no height restriction. Now that this rule is implemented, a lot can agree the safety is definitely more concerning than the advantage over another.

[jds2001]

Originally Posted by Jeffrafa

I can't find the video of it, but I saw this happen at a week 1 event - a red robot drove across the midline and pushed a stationary blue robot several inches transitively through a boulder (no direct robot contact). Only 1 foul was called due to how the rule had been written. I was a ref in week 2, and we discussed this scenario prior. We decided since R13 did not mention transitive contact, we would enforce it the same way as was done in week 1. I'm glad to see the loophole closed, as it preserves the intent of the violation.

I was also a ref in week 2, and this exact thing happened. We asked about it, and got a response of no automatic cross. I guess since it happened (apparently more than once), it caused them to look at it and change the rule to something that more closely matches the intent. A good change, IMO.