Your tall opaque robot is now illegal

[Lil' Lavery]

Chief Delphi's Greatest Hits vol. 47: Overreactions to Q&A responses

[hardcopi]

Hmm... could I get the entire opposing team red carded by attaching my camera to the wheels? So anything above like 1 inch would be intending to block my camera.

Obviously that is a bit ridiculous, but blocking a camera seems like a good strategy and if a robot can only shoot on visual cues then they have issues. We had that issue in St Joe when the field rejected our camera (we had it configured incorrectly) and we corrected the issue. We can now shoot with or without the camera.

[nrgy_blast]

A tall robot (or piece of polycarb, or a drop cloth held by a robot) doesn't interfere with the proper functioning of the sensor. The sensor is still working just fine - it just can't see what the operator wants it to see. Shining an IR laser at their camera, now THAT would be interfering with the proper functioning of the sensor.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by nrgy_blast

A tall robot (or piece of polycarb, or a drop cloth held by a robot) doesn't interfere with the proper functioning of the sensor. The sensor is still working just fine - it just can't see what the operator wants it to see. Shining an IR laser at their camera, now THAT would be interfering with the proper functioning of the sensor.

The response doesnt say "proper functioning" it says "sensing capabilities".

[Andy A.]

How about 95's arm? When its vertical it's fairly tall and does a passable job of blocking shots. That wasn't a specific design goal, but we're happy it does it. I imagine it'll also block a cameras view of the tower.

Is our arm now illegal if a RI decides it is? Because it seems they certainly have the precedent to make that call now.



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?

[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.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

This ruling is not a game changer.

You are far too trusting in the ability of random volunteers to exercise restraint and common sense when making their rulings.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Cory

You are far too trusting in the ability of random volunteers to exercise restraint and common sense when making their rulings.

Lead robot inspectors are not random. They are typically seasoned FRC veterans. We've already had one comment in this thread regarding his interpretation of this Q&A response.

[Rangel(kf7fdb)]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Lead robot inspectors are not random. They are typically seasoned FRC veterans. We've already had one comment in this thread regarding his interpretation of this Q&A response.

So question, if a team is obviously shooting high arc lob shots over a blocker's height limit, will the refs call the messing with sensors rule if the blocker attempts to "block" the shot but is really just blocking the camera? Especially if the blocker wasn't "intending" to block cameras but just block shots.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Rangel(kf7fdb)

will the refs call the messing with sensors rule if the blocker attempts to "block" the shot but is really just blocking the camera?

This Q&A is an inspection issue, not a match play issue. If you violate this rule it would be during inspection, not during a match. There is no gameplay associated rule that penalizes teams for standing in front of cameras or whatever.

[NickE]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

This Q&A is an inspection issue, not a match play issue. If you violate this rule it would be during inspection, not during a match. There is no gameplay associated rule that penalizes teams for standing in front of cameras or whatever.

At CVR, the LRI left it up to the Head Referee's discretion. Teams who had passed inspection were later forced to modify. After helping an alliance partner install a blocker, the LRI "suggested" that windows be added because the head referee would rule it a violation of R9-A.

[Brandon Holley]

Originally Posted by Rangel(kf7fdb)

So question, if a team is obviously shooting high arc lob shots over a blocker's height limit, will the refs call the messing with sensors rule if the blocker attempts to "block" the shot but is really just blocking the camera? Especially if the blocker wasn't "intending" to block cameras but just block shots.

This is just like pre-crime in Minority Report. Is a shot unblockable if said shot hasn't actually been taken yet?

-Brando

[dodar]

Originally Posted by Brandon Holley

This is just like pre-crime in Minority Report. Is a shot unblockable if said shot hasn't actually been taken yet?

-Brando

Except in this instance, Rules for Intent(even supposed intent) have been laid out.

[Brandon Holley]

Originally Posted by dodar

Except in this instance, Rules for Intent(even supposed intent) have been laid out.

If my intent is to block your shot (not your camera) - how do we know I couldn't block your shot until you actually take your shot?

Every shot is different - some will be clearly unblockable, others will be right on the edge, but unblockable and others will be right on the edge, but sometimes blockable...

Oh and in doing all of this, your camera was completely screened because I was trying to block your (maybe) unblockable shot...

-Brando

[dodar]

Originally Posted by Brandon Holley

If my intent is to block your shot (not your camera) - how do we know I couldn't block your shot until you actually take your shot?

Every shot is different - some will be clearly unblockable, others will be right on the edge, but unblockable and others will be right on the edge, but sometimes blockable...

Oh and in doing all of this, your camera was completely screened because I was trying to block your (maybe) unblockable shot...

-Brando

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.