Your tall opaque robot is now illegal

[D.Allred]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

Part of the difficulty here is the way the question itself was worded. The answer itself isn't as bad as an overly broad interpretation of the answer. The question and the answer specifically deal with "a piece of plastic installed to prevent a camera from seeing the reflective tape on the goals ", not all tall pieces of plastic or tall robots. My primary concern is if this Q&A is interpreted so broadly as to say blocking views of cameras is illegal.

Keep in mind this is an inspection issue, not a game match issue, so it's not actually illegal to play defense on a robot with a camera regardless of your design...

I don't understand your point. You can't play the defense if you don't pass inspection. Could you clarify?

Bottom line, no matter how the question was worded the answer does not make sense.

David

[RoboAlum]

well thats just dumb why even have a defense element to the game if you might not even be able to use it. Just cross your fingers that all the good shooters switch to photon cannons

[waialua359]

Originally Posted by dodar

People are inferring a broad interpretation from past GDC responses.

That does happen often, but what happens if a team complains about it, shows them the blocking robot and a printout of the Q/A response? I'm sure all referees won't see it the same way.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by mwmac

Let me get this straight, if my opponents have no vision targeting capability that uses a camera, but instead rely upon a photon cannon to confirm goal alignment, my screen that blocks the photon cannon beam is legal? Next match, my robot is illegal if one of the opponents does have a camera-based targeting system in place.

Clear as mud...

No. Per this Q&A response, if the Lead Robot Inspector determines that a component on your robot is intended to interfere with any robot's ability to sense the high goal, then you will not pass inspection. It has no impact on in match calls.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by waialua359

That does happen often, but what happens if a team complains about it, shows them the blocking robot and a printout of the Q/A response? I'm sure all referees won't see it the same way.

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

[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.

[cad321]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

The person asking the question asked if it was legal to have a device intended to interfere with sensors. The GDC responded to the question asked. People here are interpreting that to mean a much broader answer, that no devices capable of blocking cameras are allowed.

This is my interpretation aswell. As long as it is clear that you are using your mechanism to block boulders being shot, and not to interfere with vision/sensing abilities, than your robot should be deemed legal and not in violation of R9-c. People are interpreting this in a much broader scope than the initial question refered to.

[Rangel(kf7fdb)]

This is stupid. Any robots with cameras mounted low should have had countermeasures in place to deal with tall blockers. Can't every low robot now put a camera on their robot just so people can't block. In my opinion this is going to drastically change the game.

[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

[mwmac]

Say goodbye to cheesecaking blockers on second picks.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by mwmac

Say goodbye to cheesecaking blockers on second picks.

RIP Cheesecake

[Rangel(kf7fdb)]

Originally Posted by mwmac

Say goodbye to cheesecaking blockers on second picks.

Also say goodbye to any kind of defense against outerworks shooters.

[mwmac]

Originally Posted by Rangel(kf7fdb)

Also say goodbye to any kind of defense against outerworks shooters.

Defensive play just moved to the neutral zone....

[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).

[Abhishek R]

Originally Posted by RoboAlum

well thats just dumb why even have a defense element to the game if you might not even be able to use it. Just cross your fingers that all the good shooters switch to photon cannons

While I disagree with this Q&A response, many sports have an "offense-first" mindset, favoring the offense and punishing the defense with a foul. This kind of mindset being shown in the Q&A is not unprecedented in games like soccer or basketball. They are clearly trying to make the defender's role more difficult because they want to reward the the difficult task of scoring in the high goal - hence the reason R9-C even exists in the first place.