Your tall opaque robot is now illegal

[carpedav000]

You could make a box tubing frame that goes to max. height and run fishing line from top to bottom at 9.5" increments. Blocks boulders, almost impossible to block cameras. Cheesecake is still alive, you're all welcome

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by dodar

So then even if the shot misses but makes it past your blocker, you just gave that team, and their alliance, a viable reason to argue for a rematch and you having to take off your blocker because you didnt block their shot but you did block there vision system.

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

I fail to see how. You didn't violate any game rules. You already passed inspection, as your device was not specifically designed for blocking camera vision.

I think Sean is correct.

The pertinent tournament rules are G7, T12, T14, T15, and the paragraph quoted below from 5.5.2:

At each event, the Lead ROBOT Inspector (LRI) has final authority on the legality of any COMPONENT, MECHANISM, or ROBOT. Inspectors may re-Inspect ROBOTS to ensure compliance with the rules.

The Head Referee cannot replay a match based on non-compliance with a robot rule (Section 4); however he/she can declare a robot ineligible to compete in a match if that robot does has not passed inspection and that fact is discovered before the match begins, or red-card the entire alliance if it is discovered later. The Lead Robot Inspector's ruling is final on whether a robot passes inspection; neither the Head Referee nor anyone else at the event can overturn it. LRIs may consult with a remote authority (Big Al, for example) if they choose to. Re-inspections can happen any time, but will not change the results of a match that has already been played.

[Nuttyman54]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

I fail to see how. You didn't violate any game rules. You already passed inspection, as your device was not specifically designed for blocking camera vision.

From my interpretation, the sequence of events would probably be:

1) Team A places their robot on field, with a shot blocker
2) Team A plays match, successfully blocks vision and no shots
3) After a visit to the question box, and convincing by a team, the Head Referee determines Team A's robot was in violation of G7-A at the start of the match
4) The Head Referee notifies Team A that the blocker must be removed, or he will disable them at the start of their next match for G7.

Is it right? There is clearly a disagreement between the Head Referee and the LRI as to what constitutes as an R9 violation, since the LRI passed the robot through inspection. Ultimately, however, the Head Referee's decisions are final and he/she may make the interpretation that a mechanism violates G7 and refuse to allow the team to play a match until it is remedied. This sequence and rule gives the Head Referee ultimate discretion as to the legality of any part of a robot. While I'm not saying it will go to this extreme, the Head Referee certainly has the authority to disable a robot he/she believes is in violation of a robot rule.

The major concern is consistent enforcement with something that already exists in such a grey area. The question of what constitutes as "specifically designed to interfere with" and what constitutes as "interfering with remote sensing capabilities" is what defines an R9 violation, and this Q&A has opened up a very large question as to the intended interpretation. Previously, I would have thought that Jon Stratis' interpretation was the correct one: passive devices which interrupt line of sight are not interference, as long as they are not attempting to mimic the vision target or otherwise confuse the software. The GDC seems to have taken the stance that "blocking" is to be considered "interfering". R9 is a safety rule at the core, and nothing about blocking camera tracking seems to be inherently unsafe, unlike tricking a camera to see another goal, and causing a bystander to get hit with a ball (or whatever the game piece is)

It's worth noting that the term "specifically designed to" and "solely designed to" are not equivalent. I can have a device which is specifically designed to accomplish multiple things, such as an arm which can manipulate multiple defenses. I can also have a device which is specifically designed to block shots, vision and help me see my robot. It has multiple intended functions. How do you prove that something was not specifically designed for a task that it is performing?

[EmileH]

Originally Posted by carpedav000

You could make a box tubing frame that goes to max. height and run fishing line from top to bottom at 9.5" increments. Blocks boulders, almost impossible to block cameras. Cheesecake is still alive, you're all welcome

But your box tubing confuses my camera algorithm! And blocks my rangefinder, throwing off my shot! /argument_to_head_ref

[Abhishek R]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

I fail to see how. You didn't violate any game rules. You already passed inspection, as your device was not specifically designed for blocking camera vision.

Originally Posted by Richard Wallace

The Head Referee cannot replay a match based on non-compliance with a robot rule (Section 4); however he/she can declare a robot ineligible to compete in a match if that robot does has not passed inspection and that fact is discovered before the match begins, or red-card the entire alliance if it is discovered later. The Lead Robot Inspector's ruling is final on whether a robot passes inspection; neither the Head Referee nor anyone else at the event can overturn it. LRIs may consult with a remote authority (Big Al, for example) if they choose to. Re-inspections can happen any time, but will not change the results of a match that has already been played.

Even if a robot has passed inspection, an alliance can go to the Head Referee with this Q&A in hand, declare that the blocker shouldn't have passed inspection as it doesn't seem to comply with R9-C, the Head Referee then red cards the alliance for every match the robot played in with the blocker installed.

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by Nuttyman54

From my interpretation, the sequence of events would probably be:

1) Team A places their robot on field, with a shot blocker
2) Team A plays match, successfully blocks vision and no shots
3) After a visit to the question box, and convincing by a team, the Head Referee determines Team A's robot was in violation of G7-A at the start of the match
4) The Head Referee notifies Team A that the blocker must be removed, or he will disable them at the start of their next match for G7.

Is it right? There is clearly a disagreement between the Head Referee and the LRI as to what constitutes as an R9 violation, since the LRI passed the robot through inspection. Ultimately, however, the Head Referee's decisions are final and he/she may make the interpretation that a mechanism violates G7 and refuse to allow the team to play a match until it is remedied. This sequence and rule gives the Head Referee ultimate discretion as to the legality of any part of a robot. While I'm not saying it will go to this extreme, the Head Referee certainly has the authority to disable a robot he/she believes is in violation of a robot rule.

this is not correct. Per the tournament rules,

At each event, the Lead ROBOT Inspector (LRI) has final authority on the legality of any COMPONENT, MECHANISM, or ROBOT. Inspectors may re-Inspect ROBOTS to ensure compliance with the rules.

The head ref can talk with the LRI, share concerns over mechanisms And robots (and believe me, this happens frequently!), But they can't overrule the LRI on a robot rule.

Please, quote the rulebook where it gives the head ref the power to disable a robot for violation of a robot rule. There are specific game rules that reference specific robot rules with consequences (like the bumper rules), and there are game rules that mirror robot rules (like starting configuration). But there's nothing like what you've described here.

[carpedav000]

Originally Posted by EmileH

But your box tubing confuses my camera algorithm! And blocks my rangefinder, throwing off my shot! /argument_to_head_ref

I did say ALMOST impossible

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Abhishek R

Even if a robot has passed inspection, an alliance can go to the Head Referee with this Q&A in hand, declare that the blocker shouldn't have passed inspection as it doesn't seem to comply with R9-C, the Head Referee then red cards the alliance for every match the robot played in with the blocker installed.

See Jon Stratis' post right beneath yours.

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by Abhishek R

Even if a robot has passed inspection, an alliance can go to the Head Referee with this Q&A in hand, declare that the blocker shouldn't have passed inspection as it doesn't seem to comply with R9-C, the Head Referee then red cards the alliance for every match the robot played in with the blocker installed.

Do you have any idea how much illegal stuff we find on robots late in the season? I've inspected at champs for a number of years, and found that teams that went through several events did so with something illegal on their ROBOT since the beginning. For example, I had to make one team rewired their entire robot after finding they used the wrong gauge wire.. And had competed at 3 events before champs!

We can't retroactively red card teams like that. You would see half the teams at a competition getting red carded for one or more matches when we do the finals reinspection, as we ALWAYS find stuff that the teams hadn't had respected during the event. I really, really doubt you or anyone else wants us to go to that extreme.

[Thad House]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

this is not correct. Per the tournament rules,


The head ref can talk with the LRI, share concerns over mechanisms And robots (and believe me, this happens frequently!), But they can't overrule the LRI on a robot rule.

Please, quote the rulebook where it gives the head ref the power to disable a robot for violation of a robot rule. There are specific game rules that reference specific robot rules with consequences (like the bumper rules), and there are game rules that mirror robot rules (like starting configuration). But there's nothing like what you've described here.

G7-A gives them permission to disable a robot for not being in compliance with all robot rules.

[CalTran]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

this is not correct. Per the tournament rules,


The head ref can talk with the LRI, share concerns over mechanisms And robots (and believe me, this happens frequently!), But they can't overrule the LRI on a robot rule.

Please, quote the rulebook where it gives the head ref the power to disable a robot for violation of a robot rule. There are specific game rules that reference specific robot rules with consequences (like the bumper rules), and there are game rules that mirror robot rules (like starting configuration). But there's nothing like what you've described here.

I suppose if I were trying to make an argument for the disablement of a robot, I would reference G7-A.

Originally Posted by G7

When placed on the FIELD fora a MATCH, each robot must be:
A. in compliance with all ROBOT rules, ie has passed Inspection
Violation:...if it is not a quick remedy the offending ROBOT will be DISABLED and, at the discretion of the Head REFEREE, must be re-inspected/

Sniped by Thad House.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Thad House

G7-A gives them permission to disable a robot for not being in compliance with all robot rules.

Which is ultimately determined by the LRI, as the LRI has the ultimate authority on the legality of all robots/components/mechanisms.

[M217]

Originally Posted by CalTran

I suppose if I were trying to make an argument for the disablement of a robot, I would reference G7-A.

But if a robot has been completely approved by the LRI, and has already passed inspection, then a G7 argument is neither here nor there. The Head Referee should only require a reinspection if he feels the blocker in question is illegal, but if the LRI already inspected you and deemed that your blocker is fully within the rules, then he gets the final say in terms of robot legality.

[Nuttyman54]

I fail to see how an LRI can ever overrule the Head Referee on a G7-A decision. I am not arguing that the Head Referee is correct. Head Referees make incorrect interpretations of rules all the time, unfortunately. It's part of being human. Once the Head Referee determines that G7-A is violated, it is their discretion and their discretion alone (per 5.5.3) to make the decision to disable a robot, regardless of if the rule was actually violated. It is in the ARENA, it is under Head Ref jurisdiction. Period.

The Head Ref could see a blocker, make an independent decision without consulting the LRI that it violates R9, disable a robot, have the team come up to the question box afterwards, and refuse to replay the match, even if the LRI says it was legal and passed inspection. It's their prerogative.

I'm not saying it will ever go to that extreme. But per the rules, it could happen, and crazier rulings have happened on shakier ground in the past.

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Which is ultimately determined by the LRI, as the LRI has the ultimate authority on the legality of all robots/components/mechanisms.

Exactly. I have never seen a head ref call a G7-A on his own. If a robot has passed inspection, the head ref has to assume it's legal according to the robot rules. Believe it or not, most head refs don't know the robot rules all that well! Once a robot has passed inspection, the most I've seen a head ref do is ask the LRI to take another look at something specific.