So, I asked the following to the GDC as an official Q&A, but did not word it well enough or add enough detail to get the answer I was looking for I guess.
I thought I would see what the CD public thought before, or if I tried to clarify my question.
If a robot happened to have an arm that would allow it to self-right but in the process exceeded the 12" frame perimeter (this is not what the arm was designed to do it just happens to do this), do you think that would be considered a foul, or would it be considered a tech foul if utilized during a match.
I knew it would be considered at least one and the GDC confirmed that, but they did not clarify which.
The action would not directly enable scoring but could allow for scoring in the future so it might be considered strategic. It might also just appear to be frantic trying things to keep working and not appear to be strategic to the ref watching the match.
My opinion would be that if you are tipped, and you are trying to right yourself, the only reason to right yourself would be to get a strategic benefit which enables scoring. I would think that is a tech foul.
Which… rubs me the wrong way. Technically correct, but not something that I think should be called that way.
I would ask the question again, but specify that you’re asking WHICH foul, not IF foul.
Something like: “A robot falls over during a match and self-rights using a part that extends over 12”. The ability to continue scoring at all in the match is a strategic benefit. Please confirm that this is a TECH FOUL rather than a regular foul."
Not a ref either. But I would hold that righting your self while not in the direct act of scoring is only a foul. Exceeding the limits while in the act of scoring should be a tech foul.
We had an arm one year that could exceed the limit (we would never be in that position during a match), but the RI had us prove that we could not make it do that. All we did was software-lock it.
Yes I think Aaron is correct, you will not pass inspection with an arm with the that surpasses 12inch planned into your strategy. This is allowed only is something breaks and is not used for strategic advantage.
This likely true, and I would not be surprised if it was part of the inspecting process. Sometimes the refs are left to try to decide if an extension rule has been violated (see 2021 climbers).
Historically, the extensions which are in the Robot Rules are on the inspection checklist; those only in the Game Rules are not. I remember doing this my first event inspecting, Arkansas 2019. 323 Lights Out’s arm could obviously physically go past 30 inches. We used the back of a toolbox as a wall, lined the robot with the frame perimeter 30" away on blocks, and I had them put it through their cycles. WHAM! No damage done, but clearly out of spec. The team was more surprised than I was. It turned out they hadn’t zeroed some sensors.
If the historical pattern continues, we will be inspecting starting configuration and horizontal extensions, but not height extensions this year.
Added: I suspect the referees will use the April Tags on the faces of the STAGE to gauge height extensions; they are half an inch below the 48 inch allowed height.
Teams should expect to have to demonstrate a ROBOT’S ability to constrain
itself per above during inspection. Constraints may be implemented with either
hardware or software
I know you dont need hard stops but you can not have a robot that is planning to break extension limits. You must have a code or mechanical stop in place.
I misread that definitely, thought the footnote meant this update was in reference to the part about the notes not being in supply. That’s on me for not clicking the QA link as well
