Official Team Update #2! 1/15/2010

[Racer26]

Originally Posted by Phoenix Spud

Wow, this was a good team update. Normally, I dread them because they change the game, but this one seemed to clarify more than anything else.

I'm gonna have to disagree here... They changed <R19> in a big way. Not being able to intentionally affect balls above the bumper zone, while not POSESSING them is huge.

Originally Posted by Nuttyman54

I think regardless of how they worded it, the intent is very clearly that the GDC does NOT want to see robots designed to deflect balls in a specific manner, or guiding them in any manner above your bumpers other than preventing a ball getting stuck on top.

define 'a specific manner'. If i design a robot that looks approximately like this:

|\
| \
|  \
|   \
|    \
|     \
________

and park it in the direction that would deflect balls toward my end, have i violated this rule as updated in TU#2?

[Vikesrock]

Originally Posted by 1075guy

I'm gonna have to disagree here... They changed <R19> in a big way. Not being able to intentionally affect balls above the bumper zone, while not POSESSING them is huge.

<R19> as modified by update 2 does not read that you cannot intentionally affect balls above the bumper zone while not possessing them.

<G45> always restricted this behavior using an active mechanism, which has now had its definition clarified.

<R19-B> as modified requires that balls only extend a maximum of 3" inside of any (passive) MECHANISM or feature above the BUMPER ZONE that directs the balls in a controlled manner.

In my opinion (which of course doesn't mean anything), the ball does not extend inside the sloped feature you've shown at all so that would be legal. A little bit more clarification though Q&A is probably necessary for this rule.

[RRLedford]

Originally Posted by 1075guy

I'm gonna have to disagree here... They changed <R19> in a big way. Not being able to intentionally affect balls above the bumper zone, while not POSESSING them is huge.



define 'a specific manner'. If i design a robot that looks approximately like this:

|\
| \
|  \
|   \
|    \
|     \
________

and park it in the direction that would deflect balls toward my end, have i violated this rule as updated in TU#2?

Yes, good question, and what if I climb the tower and TILT my robot's flat , previously vertical side in the line of balls falling from the return ramp? Where does the 3" get measured from now that the robot has tilted. Do I have to base this 3" penetration into robot space on my original on-the-floor size, shape and orientation? If I have a tall vertical 60" flat side, and I climb the tower such that I tilt and have returning balls hitting this flat side, if my tilting moves a spot on this flat side near the top more than three inches from a vertical line through the previous UN-TILTED location of this spot, then if a ball hits this spot while tilted, is it a violation. They always make rules with INCH LIMITS that DO NOT ACCOUNT for shifting frames of reference. Then when you ask questions, they dance around this major defect in the rules.

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by 1075guy

I'm gonna have to disagree here... They changed <R19> in a big way. Not being able to intentionally affect balls above the bumper zone, while not POSESSING them is huge.



define 'a specific manner'. If i design a robot that looks approximately like this:

|\
| \
|  \
|   \
|    \
|     \
________

and park it in the direction that would deflect balls toward my end, have i violated this rule as updated in TU#2?

I believe your design as shown would be perfectly legal. Now, if the angle of that deflection was adjustable, and your deflector was in motion when a ball contacted it (say you're trying to "swat" the ball forward with the deflector by changing its angle relative to the robot), that would not be permitted per the <G45> blue box:

<G45> Blue Box 
MECHANISMS are considered "active" if they are in motion
relative to the ROBOT while in contact with the BALL.
Resetting or moving MECHANISMS while not in contact with
a BALL is permitted as the MECHANISMS are not considered
"active."

You are free to adjust the deflection angle when your deflector is not in contact with any balls. You are also free to drive your robot around with the deflector in a chosen, fixed angle.


As far as <R19-2> - let's be real here. How does a ball "extend 3" inside" a flat PLANE? It doesn't. A flat deflector above the bumper zone is legal, as long as it is not in motion relative to the robot any time it is in contact with a ball.

I believe the GDC is referring specifically to chutes, channels, funnels, diverters and other above-bumper zone structures designed to more precisely control the direction of ball movement. A diverter that can be pointed toward one goal or the other *would* be legal, as long as the diverter walls envelop 3" of the ball's height or less. Such designs are allowed, but the 3" limitation is in place to prevent *too* much control. Send a ball down a high-walled waterslide versus a typical playground slide with short rails. Which one keeps the ball down the intended path better? The waterslide. Which one is legal for competition use? The playground slide.

[Nuttyman54]

Originally Posted by 1075guy

define 'a specific manner'. If i design a robot that looks approximately like this:

|\
| \
|  \
|   \
|    \
|     \
________

and park it in the direction that would deflect balls toward my end, have i violated this rule as updated in TU#2?

I would say yes, it is a violation. I think it's clear that by parking your robot in such a position, you have demonstrated that you intend to deflect balls, which you can consistently do in a controlled manner with the sloped feature on the robot. The rule update, however, does not mention intent at all, so even just having a sloped part that looks like it may have been designed to do such a thing is iffy (and an inspector's call).

My feeling is that if you can demonstrate that it fits around other robot geometry and is simply to keep the balls from getting stuck on top, they will accept it. A random wedge with no other visible purpose or necessity will probably invite serious scrutiny, and probably deemed illegal if it is used as such in any match.

This is simply how I have interpreted the update, but by no means am I a certified robot inspector or a member of the GDC, so my opinion is only that.

[Raul]

Originally Posted by Nuttyman54

I would say yes, it is a violation. I think it's clear that by parking your robot in such a position, you have demonstrated that you intend to deflect balls, which you can consistently do in a controlled manner with the sloped feature on the robot. The rule update, however, does not mention intent at all, so even just having a sloped part that looks like it may have been designed to do such a thing is iffy (and an inspector's call).

My feeling is that if you can demonstrate that it fits around other robot geometry and is simply to keep the balls from getting stuck on top, they will accept it. A random wedge with no other visible purpose or necessity will probably invite serious scrutiny, and probably deemed illegal if it is used as such in any match.

This is simply how I have interpreted the update, but by no means am I a certified robot inspector or a member of the GDC, so my opinion is only that.

Evan,

I disagree with you. Look carefully at G45 in update 2:

<G45> Active BALL control - ROBOTS may not control BALL direction with active MECHANISMS above the BUMPER ZONE. Violation: PENALTY.
MECHANISMS are considered "active" if they are in motion relative to the ROBOT while in contact with the BALL. Resetting or moving MECHANISMS while not in contact with a BALL is permitted as the MECHANISMS are not considered "active."

The key phrase is "relative" to the robot. So, as long as the slope is not changing relative to the robot when the ball makes contaact, it is legal. The robot is allowed to drive around all you want to influence the direction of the balls. The intent is to stop us from creating a slapper or kicker above the bumpers.

[Nuttyman54]

Originally Posted by Raul

Evan,

I disagree with you. Look carefully at G45 in update 2:


The key phrase is "relative" to the robot. So, as long as the slope is not changing relative to the robot when the ball makes contaact, it is legal. The robot is allowed to drive around all you want to influence the direction of the balls. The intent is to stop us from creating a slapper or kicker above the bumpers.

I went back and re-read the update and the two rules in combination, and I think you're right. I had glossed over the part before the updated R19 where they mention complete enclosure.