Are extensions with bumpers after the start of the game legal

[Vikesrock]

Originally Posted by gbrettmiller

But if you are playing defense, especially between the caution line and the zone boundary, and you get knocked into the opposing zone, it could be argued that you put yourself in the situation where you would cross into the zone.

There is no rule against putting yourself in a situation where you can be pushed into the opponents zone, there is a rule against going into it. If another robot pushing you is the action that causes you to enter the opponents zone I fail to see how <G61> would not apply.

The actions of the opposing alliance (their robot pushing yours) caused you to violate a rule (entering the opponents home zone). Matches the scenario covered by <G61> exactly.

[EricH]

I'd have to say that the gap in the bumper causes your robot to violate the 100% coverage rule. That said, if you moved the base of the cylinder to the upper part of the frame so it didn't have to go through the bumpers, and maybe moved the attachment to the wings slightly higher, you could easily avoid the gap.

[gbrettmiller]

See Team Update #6 for clarification to <G32> (Zones) and <G33> (Lanes>:

<G61> does not apply to this rule, however strategies aimed at taking advantage of this exception will result in a YELLOW CARD. If a ROBOT enters the opponent's LANE and does not make immediate effort to leave OR if it contacts another ROBOT (or GAME PIECE in its POSSESSION) also in the LANE, then the intruding TEAM will receive a RED CARD.

[Snowbotics]

I know this is kind of random for this thread but, I made this account recently and I was wondering how do I post new threads and whats not

[joek]

Originally Posted by JesseK

This is a creative and interesting concept for defense, I think. At first glance I don't think it's illegal in its present form. Just keep in mind that the "bumpers" on the extensions must be included in the weight of the HOSTBOT, and cannot be thought of as the bumpers in the BUMPER specifications. Thus you can do pretty much whatever you want with them.

However, I think that this design is susceptible to easily being turned for two reasons:

1.) The extended frame creates more mechanical advantage for another robot to turn you.
2.) Even with traction wheels on the corners, there's very little weight on the outer corners in the extended positions; thus they provide little protection from another robot turning you.

If you're always beyond the Caution line and get turned into the opponent scoring zone by a high-traction high-torque robot, your robot will receive a penalty, per <G32>.

Thus, solve the anti-turning problem and I think that this is a solid strategy that blocks a good amount of the scoring zone.

they would not get a penalty, the team that pushed them in would

[gbrettmiller]

joek,

Check out the changes to <G32> and <G33> in Team Update #6. In a nutshell, <G61> does not apply to these rules, meaning that if your ROBOT crosses into the opposing LANE or ZONE you will get a PENALTY, regardless of how/why.

[staplemonx]

Originally Posted by gbrettmiller

joek,

Check out the changes to <G32> and <G33> in Team Update #6. In a nutshell, <G61> does not apply to these rules, meaning that if your ROBOT crosses into the opposing LANE or ZONE you will get a PENALTY, regardless of how/why.

we believe our strategy, shown below still works with the latest rules update.

Also since we don't believe any robot will be able to push us into their scoring zone we should be fine.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by staplemonx

we believe our strategy, shown below still works with the latest rules update.

I like the way you think, but when you say (in the picture) that you will "put particular effort into confusing" "cameras or sensors", you're just going to run afoul of <R02> (and therefore fail inspection). If that happens to be overlooked, you're still liable for a red card due to <G30>.

[boomergeek]

I'm not sure that padded extensions are consistent with the spirit of <G48>
"no penalties will be assigned for incidental contact with such extended mechanisms."

If the extensions are intended to be pushed into other robots or intended to be placed in positions such that contact with other robots is intentional and not incidental, then my nonbinding interpretation of the definition of "incidental" and the letter of G48 is that padded (or unpadded) extensions beyond the bumper perimeter that - (even if they are well designed to prevent damage in collisions)- are not consistent with the clear demarcation: bumpers are for intentional contact, anything else is for incidental contact.

Are the inspectors going to need to inspect if a high speed collision with extensions are just as safe as collisions with the bumpers? Bumper rules currently only apply to bumpers: would some of them need to be interpreted for "extensions"? Somehow I don't see the GDC going down that path.

I find it more likely for the GDC to decide that intentional pushing or blocking with anything other than the official bumpers is not allowed by <G48>.


If you haven't already asked an official question to the GDC, then might I suggest:

"Is it allowable without penalty to intentionally (not incidentially) make contact with the bumper of other robots using parts of our robot other than the official bumpers mounted on the frame perimeter?

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by joek

they would not get a penalty, the team that pushed them in would

Only if it was obvious the offensive robot was trying to get them the penalty. If it's obvious that the offensive robot is simply trying to get to the scoring zone (ya know, by having a tube in its possession, pre-positioning the tube for scoring, etc) then I don't think the offensive robot would be called for it.