Low bar boulder travel.

[frcteam4450]

Would it be a penalty to have a pickup system that could extend below the low bar into the neutral zone from the enemy courtyard? A possible design for us would be to, after shooting a boulder, to get another, we could remain in the enemy courtyard and then extend our pickup below the low bar and pick up a boulder from the neutral zone. Would this count as controlling the boulder while passing over a defense? Clarification appreciated, thank you

[MrForbes]

Do you know how far your robot is allowed to extend past the FRAME PERIMETER? If not, you might want to read up on that...and see if your mechanism can do what you want, within those constraints

[TGurlik]

Originally Posted by MrForbes

Do you know how far your robot is allowed to extend past the FRAME PERIMETER? If not, you might want to read up on that...and see if your mechanism can do what you want, within those constraints

That is a very good point. It would be difficult to position a BOULDER close enough to the Low Bar for your robot to only have to reach 15 in or less to grab it. (Reference R3 for extension constraint)

[TGurlik]

In terms of transferring a BOULDER into your opponent's COURTYARD, I believe it would be legal. However, it could potentially be seen as a violation of G40-1:

A ROBOT may not hold a Low Bar flap open for the purpose of allowing a DRIVE TEAM member to transfer BOULDERS into their opponent's COURTYARD.

I'm not sure if your idea of a grabber going under the bar to grab a BOULDER would be considered as holding the flap open or not. Either someone else can potentially answer that or you can go to the Q&A.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by TGurlik

In terms of transferring a BOULDER into your opponent's COURTYARD, I believe it would be legal. However, it could potentially be seen as a violation of G40-1:

I'm not sure if your idea of a grabber going under the bar to grab a BOULDER would be considered as holding the flap open or not. Either someone else can potentially answer that or you can go to the Q&A.

Actually, I'd be more concerned about a G40 violation, what with having to complete a Crossing and all. Though that could be a good question for QA, noting that it might be a G40 violation but that you're not sure it is as written.

[TGurlik]

Originally Posted by EricH

Actually, I'd be more concerned about a G40 violation, what with having to complete a Crossing and all. Though that could be a good question for QA, noting that it might be a G40 violation but that you're not sure it is as written.

Heh, in the process of finding a possible rule violation in this idea I completely skipped over the main G40 rule. I see your point with having to complete a CROSSING to satisfy G40. If you're dead set on using this strategy, I would ask on the Q&A to be sure.

[frcteam4450]

Thank you all for the great responses! it wasn't our dead set plan but we wanted clarification. thank you