This just in: Standard gameplay now deemed illegal.
Yep, that release all game pieces rule needs some work.
I’m not trying start anything, but I find comments like this on CD all the time to be extremely unhelpful. Do you care to elaborate on what specifically you are reacting to so we can actually have a discussion?
The update to the blue box in R6 about requiring compliance of the rule during inspection. The issue now is that inspectors are going to ask you to lift the hatch as tall as you can and eject it. Maybe you push it out a bit, maybe it you don’t. It falls and hits the ground from something like 8 feet in height and I wouldn’t be surprised to see it bounce off the ground and fly off in a direction. Does it fly more than 3 feet? Maybe on that try? Maybe not? So now if it does you’re illegal but if you’re lucky enough for it not to you’re not illegal. How is this a good idea?
EDIT: I’m not to say this is the interpretation of the rules, but it’s how I interpret it, and I’m worried that there may be inspectors that interpret it this way too. This seems to make inspection legality based on luck and not objective measure. It’s good to hear that the bouncing isn’t a factor, though I can still see it being pretty easy for an object to go forward three feet over an 8 ft drop.
The rule isn’t stating where the game piece comes to rest, it’s stating where the game piece lands. An “unlucky bounce” isn’t a factor in such a test. You just have to design your robot so propelling the game piece outward at max height doesn’t make it land at a point more than 3 feet away.
An inspector interpreting the rules another way is just wrong, from the language of the rules. Wrong inspectors can theoretically ruin any rule.
The measurement ends when the HATCH PANEL first hits the ground, so it doesn’t matter what direction/how far it goes after that point.
The distance is measured with a stationary ROBOT relative to the ground and from the ROBOT’S
FRAME PERIMETER to where the HATCH PANEL first contacts the ground
Still not sure that fixes the issue that by this point teams may have built mechanisms that can go a bit farther than 3 feet at 8 feet tall and are now illegal even if they would never do this in a game.
One minor update note: you can use steel angle for bumpers again! This is a neat trick to lower your CG if you’re desperate.
One bigger, less positive update note: I’m disappointed but not surprised in the lodged game piece rule. With the very thin hatch game piece, and the balls which are not impossible to pop, there will be several instances where robots have to sit out from the rest of the match due to accidents that may not even be in their control. I guess this isn’t new this year at all, but it’s still disappointing that the rule is written in a “gotcha” way that prevents teams from being able to score for the rest of the match. Oh well.
First: It’s barely Week 2 of build season…
Second: It’s been illegal the entire time. The rule about robots being not designed for launches has been there since the beginning. If you were relying on a generous interpretation of “actually is capable of launching, but hopefully they won’t think to try it in that config during inspection”, well… that’s what the update is trying to clarify.
What would happen in a case where my hatch panel gripper is on the same kind of 8’ tall lifting mechanism as previous mentioned, and the hatch panel hits my bumpers when released and bounces 3+ feet away from my robot?
I know of a few Ri3D teams that are now illegal - no reason to assume that there are zero teams that will have to redo their design and may lose significant time or even money previously invested due to this change.
Nick,
The wording leaves people a bit frustrated as it can be interpreted as:
Hatch panel gets stuck in robot.
Team accepts penalties to continue score and grabs another hatch panel.
Team scores hatch panel.
Stuck hatch panel gets loose.
Team now gets a YELLOW CARD.
“If ROBOT release all GAME PIECES” doesn’t have a pre-requisite for the prior more than 2 penalty.
I’m concerned about the idea that control doesn’t mean holding the game piece. If you hold them up against a wall, you’re controlling them. It wouldn’t be difficult to control several cargo at once by pinning them up into a corner. If you drive away, you’ve released control of all of them. That’s an instant RED CARD. You’re now essentially required to sit there for the remainder of the game if you’re flagged.
It’s created a lot of area for extra cards.
Agreed, I actually thought this issue (handling & releasing multiple pieces simultaneously) is what Andrew was talking about. There’s a whole class of intakes that are suddenly much, much riskier.
Any wide-mouth feeder can grab multiple pieces at once. If the team sees they accidentally grabbed multiple pieces and immediately releases the multiple pieces, that’s a storm of yellow cards.
While I think this update helps add clarity to the inspection part of this rule, I am still unclear as to why it even needs to exist. Launching rules have existed in some form for the past couple of years and have never been part of the robot rules. I know there have been issues with calls but was there any major incident last year that may have warranted making this a robot rule?
I mean, we hit a ref with a cube on accident.
So, our bad?
Could you see this playing out similar to 2006’s max ball speed rule? I’m pretty sure it’s generally accepted that while all teams were clocked in the pits to be under the limit, some turned it way up on the field.
I assume they are referring to the more then two game pieces for that sentence. I don’t think it’s clear enough.
The wording in G4 is so unclear I’m not even sure what the intent is. A yellow card is already sufficient incentive not to have multiple game pieces on your robot. Furthermore, if the violation is deemed to be strategic, it could already be penalized with a red card at the referee’s discretion. I have no clue why they felt they had to write this into a rule that forces referee’s to rule a certain way. Furthermore, the writing is really unclear.
It’s seems ridiculous that a team would be penalized for trying to get rid of additional scoring objects (with a red card no less). What was wrong with the old wording?
Consider the penalty. Launching last year was a tech foul. This year, it’s a red card. I’d personally prefer if things were checked a bit more closely to prevent a red card before it takes place. The tech foul I could live with.