Your tall opaque robot is now illegal

[nrgy_blast]

A tall robot (or piece of polycarb, or a drop cloth held by a robot) doesn't interfere with the proper functioning of the sensor. The sensor is still working just fine - it just can't see what the operator wants it to see. Shining an IR laser at their camera, now THAT would be interfering with the proper functioning of the sensor.

[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

[dodar]

Originally Posted by nrgy_blast

A tall robot (or piece of polycarb, or a drop cloth held by a robot) doesn't interfere with the proper functioning of the sensor. The sensor is still working just fine - it just can't see what the operator wants it to see. Shining an IR laser at their camera, now THAT would be interfering with the proper functioning of the sensor.

The response doesnt say "proper functioning" it says "sensing capabilities".

[Andy A.]

How about 95's arm? When its vertical it's fairly tall and does a passable job of blocking shots. That wasn't a specific design goal, but we're happy it does it. I imagine it'll also block a cameras view of the tower.

Is our arm now illegal if a RI decides it is? Because it seems they certainly have the precedent to make that call now.



What if I put a range sensor on the front of our robot and argue that its used to sense distance from the tower for shooting guidance, and if a robot gets between the tower and my robot then it's interfering with my robots sensing capabilities? That's obviously ridiculous, so why are cameras any different?

[NickE]

Originally Posted by Karthik

I would have agreed with this until I saw Mike Corsetto's description of an incident at CVR.

Back to your interpretation (and my initial one as well):

Here's a device that was intended to block shots, not intended to interfere with sensors, that was forced to be modified. Seems like some head referees are interpreting this rule to mean that any device which blocks a camera, despite the intent, is illegal.

I believe the rulings Mike is describing from CVR were regarding R9-A (obstructing the vision of drivers or coaches).
I did not hear of any referee calls at CVR of blockers violating R9-C (sensor interference).

Regardless, there is significant ambiguity in the rules for both R9-A and C that should be clarified.
With the rules as enforced at CVR and as clarified by this Q&A response, I would be worried if we had built a defensive blocker.
As written, R9 ("robots shall not ... interfere with the operation of other robots"), could be interpreted as outlawing all defense.

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by dodar

The response doesnt say "proper functioning" it says "sensing capabilities".

I would argue that a tall opaque robot does not interfere with the sensing capabilities of other cameras - those cameras still sense whatever they are pointing at. They do not impersonate a goal or make control systems think they are pointed at one when they aren't.

As a corollary to this... What if I have a camera pointed straight in front of my robot with the intent of using it to locate balls on the ground, or to help me line up for crossing defenses? Does that mean opposing robots have to get out of my way and can't get between me and any ball or defense, just because they would be blocking my camera?

From this Q&A, I guess as an LRI I would be forced to make a judgement call on robots with blockers - is the blocker sufficiently tall and sturdy enough that it can be considered a ball blocker?. It doesn't really take much for something to be sturdy enough to deflect balls from scoring, which leaves it pretty wide open.

[BrennanB]

Originally Posted by mwmac

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

It has always been there, people just haven't been playing it.

[Zebra_Fact_Man]

mfw all tall, monolithic robots are now violating the rules for obstructing other team's "sensing capabilities".

GG tall 'bots; you must be this short to play Stronghold.

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by BrennanB

It has always been there, people just haven't been playing it.

To be fair, playing defense in the neutral zone at lower levels can be pretty spooky because there is much less margin for error for a robot that probably will not be well practiced or well coached enough to handle it in a foul-free way that also doe not impede your alliance.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

To be fair, playing defense in the neutral zone at lower levels can be pretty spooky because there is much less margin for error for a robot that probably will not be well practiced or well coached enough to handle it in a foul-free way that also doe not impede your alliance.

You're thinking of the wrong kind of defense. Contest the balls! Don't push the robots! To me, "man defense" is often the wrong call in this game and too many teams are focused on the physical, versus denying access to resources. Denying a ball possession, especially if you give your own alliance possession of the same ball, has a higher return than making a robot miss one shot.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Andy A.

What if I put a range sensor on the front of our robot and argue that its used to sense distance from the tower for shooting guidance, and if a robot gets between the tower and my robot then it's interfering with my robots sensing capabilities? That's obviously ridiculous, so why are cameras any different?

Cameras aren't any different. Let's look at the Q&A response. I'm going to bold the passage I feel is pertinent here.

Originally Posted by Q953 Answer

A. A piece of plastic installed to prevent a camera from seeing the reflective tape on the goals is a device specifically designed or intended to interfere with another ROBOT'S sensing capabilities and is prohibited by R9 and the added language included in its Blue Box. Meanwhile, please see the answer to Q937 as we feel this is an important element to Lead Robot Inspector authority.

A drivetrain is not specifically designed or intended to interfere with ultrasonic sensors (or cameras or any other sensors). A drivetrain has very obvious alternative uses, that make it clear the intent of having a drivetrain was not to jam sensors, but rather to move around the field. Any robot inspector will be able to ascertain this.

With regards to your arm or other "tall opaque" objects, the same logic applies. If the design of the device is obvious that it is not specifically designed or intended to block camera vision, then the Lead Robot Inspector is unlikely to deem it illegal.

This ruling is not a game changer.

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

You're thinking of the wrong kind of defense. Contest the balls! Don't push the robots! To me, "man defense" is often the wrong call in this game and too many teams are focused on the physical, versus denying access to resources. Denying a ball possession, especially if you give your own alliance possession of the same ball, has a higher return than making a robot miss one shot.

We're both thinking of kinds of defense that will not be seen in a considerably effective way before Week 6 because the supply of robots capable of it do not exist at most events and because of that, the demand is also absent.

Defense is going to get really fun Week 6 and later; aka by the time most teams have squished the bugs in their shooters

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

This ruling is not a game changer.

You are far too trusting in the ability of random volunteers to exercise restraint and common sense when making their rulings.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

We're both thinking of kinds of defense that will not be seen in a considerably effective way before Week 6 because the supply of robots capable of it do not exist at most events and because of that, the demand is also absent.

Defense is going to get really fun Week 6 and later; aka by the time most teams have squished the bugs in their shooters

I don't know what you're talking about - this is something my alliance did in Week 1. Finding a second pick with a functional intake is not exceptionally hard at most events, and it's also somewhat easy to cheesecake. Using this strategy, plus a lot of luck and opportunism, we were able to win one of our semi-final matches against the eventual event winners. There's only 9 balls in the middle - teams should be contesting these at all levels of play! (Assuming "score in the low goal" is present at the lowest levels of play, which I guess might not be)

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Cory

You are far too trusting in the ability of random volunteers to exercise restraint and common sense when making their rulings.

Lead robot inspectors are not random. They are typically seasoned FRC veterans. We've already had one comment in this thread regarding his interpretation of this Q&A response.