Your tall opaque robot is now illegal

[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.