Redirecting with an inclined top

[RC Dawson]

If a bot can position itself at a point where a returned ball will land and use an inclined top to redirect the ball into the bot's alliance's zone, would that be considered CARRYING? The incline on the top would not be moving at all and would not be an ACTIVE component. Thoughts?

[EricH]

Originally Posted by RC Dawson

If a bot can position itself at a point where a returned ball will land and use an inclined top to redirect the ball into the bot's alliance's zone, would that be considered CARRYING? The incline on the top would not be moving at all and would not be an ACTIVE component. Thoughts?

We've been discussing this since Kickoff. There has been no conclusion reached here.

I've a strong hunch that this will wind up in the Q&A tomorrow when it opens.

Personally, I think it could go either way.

[Eugene Fang]

What if the plane is normally flat, but can be raised to become an incline? Would it be a definite "no" or would it be okay as long as the ball doesn't contact when it is raising?

Or would this be another Q&A question?

[steelerborn]

well think of it this way, you need to build a way to keep balls from landing on top of your bot. Otherwise they would be stuck there and thus acquire a carrying penalty. If you design a slant to keep balls from getting stuck then that would be fine. However if it seems like your purpose is not to protect your bot from a penalty but to manipulate the direction of a ball then I would say that would be a penalty. We will find out tomorrow with the Q&A.

[MrForbes]

If it's not an ACTIVE MECHANISM (whatever that might be defined as?) then it should be legal.

Thinking about trying to get some of that goal foam....

[David Brinza]

Originally Posted by squirrel

If it's not an ACTIVE MECHANISM (whatever that might be defined as?) then it should be legal.

Thinking about trying to get some of that goal foam....

The GDC hasn't [yet] capitalized ACTIVE in <G45>. I suspect their definition of ACTIVE mechanism would involve a controllable, articulated, powered feature. I would consider springback of a lexan shield or damping by miracle foam to be "PASSIVE".

However, I'm not part the GDC, thus my previous statement could just be Bold Speculation.

[Madison]

Originally Posted by David Brinza

The GDC hasn't [yet] capitalized ACTIVE in <G45>. I suspect their definition of ACTIVE mechanism would involve a controllable, articulated, powered feature. I would consider springback of a lexan shield or damping by miracle foam to be "PASSIVE".

However, I'm not part the GDC, thus my previous statement could just be Bold Speculation.

Our concern has been that the movement of the robot's drivetrain alone may be enough to impart "active" properties unto an otherwise inactive robot feature. If the top of a robot is sloped and a ball bounces off of it inadvertently, surely this cannot violate the rules, but if the robot is moving while that happens such that the ball is directed advantageously, is that a significantly different behavior? It's a weird question.

[David Brinza]

Originally Posted by Madison

Our concern has been that the movement of the robot's drivetrain alone may be enough to impart "active" properties unto an otherwise inactive robot feature. If the top of a robot is sloped and a ball bounces off of it inadvertently, surely this cannot violate the rules, but if the robot is moving while that happens such that the ball is directed advantageously, is that a significantly different behavior? It's a weird question.

Especially if "intent" enters into the referees' decision process on contacting and redirecting the ball. If the robot is in motion when the ball hits above the bumper zone, will the referee need to decide whether the action was incidental or intended? If the ball travels in a favorable direction, was it good driving or good luck? I see this a a potential can of worms. I wouldn't want teams to be forced to stop the robot to avoid a <G45> penalty, even though if the robot was stopped at just the right place and orientation...ugh!

[Jared Russell]

Is an "active MECHANISM" one that IS moving, or one that CAN move? That would be my question.

[bsudduth]

The question Jared341 posed is the exact question I would like answered.

Common sense would dictate to me that it would have to be one that "can" move, but not actually moving when contacted by a ball falling from the ball return. Otherwise, it would be impossible to build a robot that could both prevent the landing of a ball resting on top yet also be able to drive under the tower.

How does one go about getting this question answered officially?

[Kage]

I don't think that this is going to be as big of a deal as anyone is making it out to be.
Sloped tops are almost mandatory since you don't want balls getting stuck...
I do not think that they would design a rule to penalize someone for bumping a ball of of a stationary slant on the top of their bot...I mean, hey, you can headbutt the ball in real soccer right?

but I still want to know the definitive answer of this...