Your tall opaque robot is now illegal

[Oblarg]

I'm currently undecided on whether this rule interpretation is lousy or not, but really, a lot of the theatrics and alarmism in this thread is unbecoming.

People, it is rather difficult to construe this ruling as "anything that interferes with your robot is now illegal." It's not an issue of broad v. narrow reading, a lot of the (rather inane, I think) "well, now <insert common thing here> must also be illegal!" lines of argument simply don't follow at all from the Q&A response without some rather silly mental gymnastics.

Whether intent should factor into robot rules is a valid question with defensible arguments on either side (though I think you'd likely be hard-pressed to eliminate it entirely). But the sky isn't falling, the number of robots this change(?) in interpretation actually applies to is very small, and snarking about how you're going to add a bunch of sensors to your robot so that everyone else's robot is now in violation of the interpretation does not, as far as I can tell, add much to the discussion.

Just my two cents.

[Michael Corsetto]

Originally Posted by Oblarg

I'm currently undecided on whether this rule interpretation is lousy or not, but really, a lot of the theatrics and alarmism in this thread is unbecoming.

People, it is rather difficult to construe this ruling as "anything that interferes with your robot is now illegal." It's not an issue of broad v. narrow reading, a lot of the (rather inane, I think) "well, now <insert common thing here> must also be illegal!" lines of argument simply don't follow at all from the Q&A response without some rather silly mental gymnastics.

Whether intent should factor into robot rules is a valid question with defensible arguments on either side (though I think you'd likely be hard-pressed to eliminate it entirely). But the sky isn't falling, the number of robots this change(?) in interpretation actually applies to is very small, and snarking about how you're going to add a bunch of sensors to your robot so that everyone else's robot is now in violation of the interpretation does not, as far as I can tell, add much to the discussion.

Just my two cents.

While you may not appreciate extreme examples of a certain interpretation, I think they are important.

These extremes (and more moderate examples) highlight ways that teams can get blindsided by a particular LRI or Head Ref's interpretation of the rule.

Some odd interpretation of R9-A led to us cutting "windows" into our shot blocker at CVR. Thankfully, the effectiveness of our defensive strategy was not compromised. I felt like we were just one small interpretation step away from things going differently at CVR, and having tall blockers eliminated completely.

I appreciate the reactions, they are a result of many minds working and analyzing every aspect of this year's challenge.

I think that is pretty cool.

-Mike

[Cliffton]

[Libby K]

Q & A 959 has been answered:

Q. Assuming no interfering markings a la Q955, would a robot that completely fills the maximum sizing volume allowed by R3 and is not transparent violate R9-A or any other rule? Assuming that to a reasonable observer that modifications are made to the robot to block shots, may a robot be modified and reinspected during the event to fill the maximum space allowed by R3? Must these modifications be made of transparent materials or have holes cut in them for visibility?
2016-03-23 by FRC1410


A. Before we address your questions, we want to be clear that, as a matter of principal, we try hard to answer the questions asked and avoid inferring what we think the questioner was trying to ask. Given that, please accept our apologies if the information that follows is not what you were seeking. A ROBOT that completely fills the maximum size volume allowed by R3 is not automatically a violation of R9-A, but it is impossible for us to say whether it would violate any other rule. Yes, a ROBOT may be modified after initial Inspection in a variety of ways that are still within the rule set, including increasing its size such that it maxes out the size constraints (and please note T15). There is no requirement that materials used be transparent.

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by Libby K

Q & A 959 has been answered:

In principle, the GDC gave a good answer. That answer might not fully address the questioner's principal concern.

[Tem1514 Mentor]

We have been told that using a non-see thought screen as a defence to both block a shot and/or block a camera view is against the rules.

Could someone be so kind as point out this rule in the Game Manual for me as I can not seem to find it

Many thanks.

[Ben Wolsieffer]

If you have not done so already, you will want to read through this thread: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=146094

[cbale2000]

There's nothing against blocking a shot, per say, there is a rule about mechanisms specifically designed to block camera tracking, per R9.

Imo, the simple solution is to just use a sheet of polycarbonate for blocking shots.

[dubiousSwain]

Originally Posted by cbale2000

There's nothing against blocking a shot, per say, there is a rule about mechanisms specifically designed to block camera tracking, per R9.

Imo, the simple solution is to just use a sheet of polycarbonate for blocking shots.

This is purely semantics, but the isn't a rule about /blocking/ the camera image. There is a rule about blocking the vision of driver, and there is a rule about jamming, specifically mimicking the vision targets. But there is no rule about blocking cameras.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by dubiousSwain

This is purely semantics, but the isn't a rule about /blocking/ the camera image. There is a rule about blocking the vision of driver, and there is a rule about jamming, specifically mimicking the vision targets. But there is no rule about blocking cameras.

Q&A says differently. If you build a blocker, purely to block a camera from viewing the goals, that blocker is illegal.

[Tem1514 Mentor]

Thank you for the link.


Just a few comments IMHO.

Wow, what a can of worms this one is.

I would just like to remind everyone that the Q&A is NOT official, only the Game Manual is. Please see 1.6 in the manual.

So as long as the LRI has passed the robot making it and all of its' components legal (Rule 5.5.2) then the head referee would have to say that a robot is just blocking the shot. Just food for though.

Opps, will move my comments over to the other thread.

[Tem1514 Mentor]

Just a few comments IMHO.

Wow, what a can of worms this one is.

I would just like to remind everyone that the Q&A is NOT official, only the Game Manual is. Please see 1.6 in the manual.

So as long as the LRI has passed the robot making it and all of its' components legal (Rule 5.5.2) then the head referee would have to say that a robot would just trying to block/deflect the shot.

[jspatz1]

Originally Posted by Tem1514 Mentor

I would just like to remind everyone that the Q&A is NOT official, only the Game Manual is.

Incorrect.

[Tem1514 Mentor]

Originally Posted by jspatz1

Incorrect.

The only time the Q&A answer becomes official is when it causes a team update to occur that causes the game manual to be changed. Not all Q&A answers cause team updates. Again please see 1.6 in the game manual.

[GaryVoshol]

Threads merged