Your tall opaque robot is now illegal

[rich2202]

The problem with the question is that the GDC is trying to be sensitive to R9, blue box A and C

A. Shields, curtains, or any other devices or materials designed or used
to obstruct or limit the vision of any DRIVERS and/or COACHES and/
or interfere with their ability to safely control their ROBOT

C. Any devices or decorations specifically intended to jam or interfere
with the remote sensing capabilities of another ROBOT, including
vision systems, acoustic range finders, sonars, infrared proximity
detectors, etc. (e.g. including imagery on your ROBOT that, to a
reasonably astute observer, mimics the retro-reflective features of the
TOWER described in Section 2.3.1.3 TOWER

So, if the purpose of a robot piece is to block cameras (limit the vision), then it is a violation of R9.

If the purpose is to block shots, then that is ok, as it is an obstacle that robot designers are supposed to take into account.

So, put up an opaque piece of fabric that is supposed to interfere with boulder shooting, and you are fine. If it happens to block vision, so be it.

The rule is intended to prevent a defending robot from intentionally shining a flashlight directly into the camera of the other robot.

As they say: Bad cases make bad law.

Just make sure the robot piece has a purpose other than to interfere with sensing capabilities of the robot.

That'll then go on how the LRI or Head Ref interprets the response by the GDC.

IMHO: As an R9 call, that is solely in the LRI's court. In general, G's are for Ref's, and R's are for RI's.

[Michael Corsetto]

Originally Posted by rich2202

The problem with the question is that the GDC is trying to be sensitive to R9, blue box A and C


So, if the purpose of a robot piece is to block cameras (limit the vision), then it is a violation of R9.

If the purpose is to block shots, then that is ok, as it is an obstacle that robot designers are supposed to take into account.

So, put up an opaque piece of fabric that is supposed to interfere with boulder shooting, and you are fine. If it happens to block vision, so be it.

The rule is intended to prevent a defending robot from intentionally shining a flashlight directly into the camera of the other robot.

As they say: Bad cases make bad law.

Just make sure the robot piece has a purpose other than to interfere with sensing capabilities of the robot.

That's your (very reasonable) opinion.

However, the Head Ref at CVR ruled that all 4'6" blockers violated R9, Blue Box A. We had to cut large holes in our blockers to make them legal.

I believe this was a misinterpretation, but the rules and especially the Blue Box is not clear.

-Mike

[rich2202]

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto

However, the Head Ref at CVR ruled that all 4'6" blockers violated R9, Blue Box A. We had to cut large holes in our blockers to make them legal.

Isn't the purpose of the Spy is because the GDC anticipated that it would be difficult for a Driver to see the other side of the field?

Recycle Rush anticipated that same problem, but told Teams to expect it and plan accordingly - which they could do without interference from the other alliance (litter being the exception).

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by rich2202

The problem with the question is that the GDC is trying to be sensitive to R9, blue box A and C


So, if the purpose of a robot piece is to block cameras (limit the vision), then it is a violation of R9.

If the purpose is to block shots, then that is ok, as it is an obstacle that robot designers are supposed to take into account.

So, put up an opaque piece of fabric that is supposed to interfere with boulder shooting, and you are fine. If it happens to block vision, so be it.

The rule is intended to prevent a defending robot from intentionally shining a flashlight directly into the camera of the other robot.

As they say: Bad cases make bad law.

Just make sure the robot piece has a purpose other than to interfere with sensing capabilities of the robot.



IMHO: As an R9 call, that is solely in the LRI's court. In general, G's are for Ref's, and R's are for RI's.

This sets up an interesting situation--what if a robot can shoot over a fully extended blocker, but it's camera can't see past the blocker because it's mounted so low? I don't think that was the intent of the rule, but that could make it illegal to block a catapult shooter, but allow blocking of low wheeled shooters.

[Peyton Yeung]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

This sets up an interesting situation--what if a robot can shoot over a fully extended blocker, but it's camera can't see past the blocker because it's mounted so low? I don't think that was the intent of the rule, but that could make it illegal to block a catapult shooter, but allow blocking of low wheeled shooters.

We saw this at the Walker Warren District Event this past weekend. In our last match 3176 played defense on us. They had a long arm they raised up which blocked our flashlight and camera. We were still able to shoot over the arm but it made it so we couldn't see the flashlight nor our camera feed. We never interpreted it as trying to block our vision, just our shot.

[MaGiC_PiKaChU]

we had an opponent in 2013 that used a green team shirt as a blocker on our alliance partner's full court shooter that used vision... I guess this is the type of strategy that is not allowed with this Q&A