Your tall opaque robot is now illegal

[rich2202]

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto

However, the Head Ref at CVR ruled that all 4'6" blockers violated R9, Blue Box A. We had to cut large holes in our blockers to make them legal.

Isn't the purpose of the Spy is because the GDC anticipated that it would be difficult for a Driver to see the other side of the field?

Recycle Rush anticipated that same problem, but told Teams to expect it and plan accordingly - which they could do without interference from the other alliance (litter being the exception).

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by rich2202

The problem with the question is that the GDC is trying to be sensitive to R9, blue box A and C


So, if the purpose of a robot piece is to block cameras (limit the vision), then it is a violation of R9.

If the purpose is to block shots, then that is ok, as it is an obstacle that robot designers are supposed to take into account.

So, put up an opaque piece of fabric that is supposed to interfere with boulder shooting, and you are fine. If it happens to block vision, so be it.

The rule is intended to prevent a defending robot from intentionally shining a flashlight directly into the camera of the other robot.

As they say: Bad cases make bad law.

Just make sure the robot piece has a purpose other than to interfere with sensing capabilities of the robot.



IMHO: As an R9 call, that is solely in the LRI's court. In general, G's are for Ref's, and R's are for RI's.

This sets up an interesting situation--what if a robot can shoot over a fully extended blocker, but it's camera can't see past the blocker because it's mounted so low? I don't think that was the intent of the rule, but that could make it illegal to block a catapult shooter, but allow blocking of low wheeled shooters.

[Peyton Yeung]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

This sets up an interesting situation--what if a robot can shoot over a fully extended blocker, but it's camera can't see past the blocker because it's mounted so low? I don't think that was the intent of the rule, but that could make it illegal to block a catapult shooter, but allow blocking of low wheeled shooters.

We saw this at the Walker Warren District Event this past weekend. In our last match 3176 played defense on us. They had a long arm they raised up which blocked our flashlight and camera. We were still able to shoot over the arm but it made it so we couldn't see the flashlight nor our camera feed. We never interpreted it as trying to block our vision, just our shot.

[MaGiC_PiKaChU]

we had an opponent in 2013 that used a green team shirt as a blocker on our alliance partner's full court shooter that used vision... I guess this is the type of strategy that is not allowed with this Q&A

[notmattlythgoe]

Why would they think this is right?

[mman1506]

Q955 has just been posted clarifying rule Q953 https://frc-qa.firstinspires.org//Qu...t-violate-r9-c

[Zebra_Fact_Man]

Originally Posted by mman1506

Q955 has just been posted clarifying rule Q953 https://frc-qa.firstinspires.org//Qu...t-violate-r9-c

Thank you FRC 1410 and GDC for rectifying this potentially game changing defensive exodus!

Defense Apocalypse Cancelled

[MichaelHaughney]

So by the logic that a robot "specifically designed or intended to interfere with another ROBOT'S sensing capabilities" is a violation of R9, what is to say that because we use a IMU, any robot that bumps us is also in violation of R9?

[efoote868]

Originally Posted by MichaelHaughney

So by the logic that a robot "specifically designed or intended to interfere with another ROBOT'S sensing capabilities" is a violation of R9, what is to say that because we use a IMU, any robot that bumps us is also in violation of R9?

The other robots are designed to play stronghold, not specifically disrupt your sensor. The fact that they can disrupt your sensor through normal game play does not put them in violation of R9.

If they had put an unbalanced spinning mass with the exclusive intent to vibrate the field to disrupt your IMU, that would be a violation of R9.

[aldaeron]

I have submitted another follow up to (hopefully) clear up any R9-A violations or other issues with defensive add-ons of all kinds (and cake varieties). Should have been a little more thorough in the first Q&A.

-matto-

Edit: General advice to teams is to make sure that the team members talking to inspectors and referees are very clear and consistent in the messaging that any tall parts of the robot (whether added on during competition or not) are for blocking shots only. The fact that some teams chose to build low robots that cannot see or shoot or aim is inconsequential. On the note of visibility and R9-A, the GDC has been clear that lack of visibility was intentional (Team Update 16 says "Limited visibility for drivers was one of the intended challenges with this game ..."). Teams that chose to spend their time and resources improving their visibility can gain an advantage if they thought the problem through carefully and made good design choices.

[Lil' Lavery]

What's the record for the longest Q&A chain? Can this break it?

[aldaeron]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

What's the record for the longest Q&A chain? Can this break it?

I can still hear you saying you would never break the chain

[Michael Corsetto]

Originally Posted by aldaeron

I have submitted another follow up to (hopefully) clear up any R9-A violations or other issues with defensive add-ons of all kinds (and cake varieties). Should have been a little more thorough in the first Q&A.

Thank you for submitting this follow up. Looking forward to the GDC's response, considering the Head Ref's interpretation of R9-A at CVR.

-Mike

[rsisk]

Here is Q955 for FYI...

This was also a discussion on our LRI call last night and there was a reasonable solution to cover us until Q955 answer came out.

Q955
FRC Q&A Answered Questions
Q: Please clarify Q953 - If a robot meets the sizing requirements for R3 and does not have any markings that are similar to the field (i.e. markings meant to mimic vision targets) does it violate R9-C? If so, could you please expand on the criteria for what violates R9-C? For example: does translucent plastic sheeting or bumper noodles at the maximum height that was added between Qualifications and Eliminations that to a reasonable observer is for the purposes of blocking shots violate R9-C?

A: A device which is not specifically intended to interfere with the remote sensing capabilities of another ROBOT, but merely happens to be in the way of that ROBOT sensing a desired object, while intended for other functions(such as blocking shots), would not be a violation of R9-C.

(Asked by FRC1410 on 2016-03-22.)

[Cliffton]