Your tall opaque robot is now illegal

[Pat Fairbank]

Apologies for the inflammatory title, but I predict that this Q&A response is likely to cause some enforcement issues at upcoming events.

Is it now illegal to play defense on an opponent whose camera is mounted low enough such that your robot blocks its view of the goals? Where is the line drawn between blocking the camera vs. blocking actual shots? If you mount a vertical flap of polycarb to your robot and say that it's just there to block flying boulders, does that make it okay?

[dodar]

Originally Posted by Pat Fairbank

Apologies for the inflammatory title, but I predict that this Q&A response is likely to cause some enforcement issues at upcoming events.

Is it now illegal to play defense on an opponent whose camera is mounted low enough such that your robot blocks its view of the goals? Where is the line drawn between blocking the camera vs. blocking actual shots? If you mount a vertical flap of polycarb to your robot and say that it's just there to block flying boulders, does that make it okay?

Add sponsor stickers and say that is your sponsor plate; now it's main function isnt for blocking anything.

This is going to turn into a material war. They specifically locked out plastic, but what if a team uses bumper fabric?

[PayneTrain]

we cant shoot in the high goal but we will just put a camera pointing up on the robot for memes now

[CalTran]

Slippery slopes are slippery.

[Cam877]

I don't agree with this ruling at all. Camera oriented robots have to get used to dealing with defense, and have a plan against it. My question is: how often will it actually be enforced? It seems that it would have to be a call made by the lead robot inspector, and as long as you tell him its main purpose is to block boulders, it's technically not illegal anyway.

[Cam_Team 2619]

The clickbait is real with this title...

On a real note, I think that making this illegal would be completely ruining a strategy and style of play that has no inherent issues to it; defense is a legitimate strat, and should be allowed.

[Chris is me]

Part of the difficulty here is the way the question itself was worded. The answer itself isn't as bad as an overly broad interpretation of the answer. The question and the answer specifically deal with "a piece of plastic installed to prevent a camera from seeing the reflective tape on the goals ", not all tall pieces of plastic or tall robots. My primary concern is if this Q&A is interpreted so broadly as to say blocking views of cameras is illegal.

Keep in mind this is an inspection issue, not a game match issue, so it's not actually illegal to play defense on a robot with a camera regardless of your design...

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

Part of the difficulty here is the way the question itself was worded. The answer itself isn't as bad as an overly broad interpretation of the answer. The question and the answer specifically deal with "a piece of plastic installed to prevent a camera from seeing the reflective tape on the goals ", not all tall pieces of plastic or tall robots. My primary concern is if this Q&A is interpreted so broadly as to say blocking views of cameras is illegal.

Keep in mind this is an inspection issue, not a game match issue, so it's not actually illegal to play defense on a robot with a camera regardless of your design...

Bingo.

The person asking the question asked if it was legal to have a device intended to interfere with sensors. The GDC responded to the question asked. People here are interpreting that to mean a much broader answer, that no devices capable of blocking cameras are allowed.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Bingo.

The person asking the question asked if it was legal to have a device intended to interfere with sensors. The GDC responded to the question asked. People here are interpreting that to mean a much broader answer, that no devices capable of blocking cameras are allowed.

People are inferring a broad interpretation from past GDC responses.

[waialua359]

Originally Posted by dodar

People are inferring a broad interpretation from past GDC responses.

That does happen often, but what happens if a team complains about it, shows them the blocking robot and a printout of the Q/A response? I'm sure all referees won't see it the same way.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by waialua359

That does happen often, but what happens if a team complains about it, shows them the blocking robot and a printout of the Q/A response? I'm sure all referees won't see it the same way.

That'll then go on how the LRI or Head Ref interprets the response by the GDC.

[cad321]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

The person asking the question asked if it was legal to have a device intended to interfere with sensors. The GDC responded to the question asked. People here are interpreting that to mean a much broader answer, that no devices capable of blocking cameras are allowed.

This is my interpretation aswell. As long as it is clear that you are using your mechanism to block boulders being shot, and not to interfere with vision/sensing abilities, than your robot should be deemed legal and not in violation of R9-c. People are interpreting this in a much broader scope than the initial question refered to.

[headlight]

For an engineering activity that generally focuses heavily on results and effects there are a surprising number of rules that hinge on intention.

If I am able to justify my large blocker that happens to impede camera operation by claiming I intended it to only block boulders, can I justify running my ultrasonic range finders on full blast all match because my team collects the data for our study on the effectiveness of range finders during matches? All remote sensing on a robot is going to be subject to interference from ambient conditions and from other robots, the question that needs to be resolved is how much interference is allowed and if the legality of the interference is determined by the intentions of the team or the actual effects of the device.

[Pat Fairbank]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

The person asking the question asked if it was legal to have a device intended to interfere with sensors. The GDC responded to the question asked. People here are interpreting that to mean a much broader answer, that no devices capable of blocking cameras are allowed.

Be that as it may, is it too much to ask for the GDC to use their own common sense and answer the question that the asker really intended to ask? My principal concern here is that lacking further clarification about what blocking strategies are actually legal, LRIs are going to see this Q&A and start applying it incorrectly to robots that are legal within the intent of the rule.

[marshall]

Originally Posted by Pat Fairbank

Be that as it may, is it too much to ask for the GDC to use their own common sense and answer the question that the asker really intended to ask? My principal concern here is that lacking further clarification about what blocking strategies are actually legal, LRIs are going to see this Q&A and start applying it incorrectly to robots that are legal within the intent of the rule.

Yeah, I'm with you Pat. This makes the business of blocking any shots significantly more difficult because someone can say "It blocks our camera!" and point a finger.

I know for certain that at least one team we've encountered this season with a cloth blocker was intentionally designed to block cameras and balls. Personally, I thought it was clever.