Robots in previous seasons have often had anti-tip devices that extend from the back of the robot to prevent it from falling over backwards. Here is an example:
Robots in Skyrise are likely to have anti-tip devices that extend out the sides of the robot as well as the back. Depending on their size and strength, these could be used for the purpose of pinning or trapping another robot.
Questions:
If a robot has anti-tips that were designed and deployed solely for the purpose of preventing tipping, and during the match the robot uses those anti-tips to pin or trap or otherwise limit the movement of another robot, is it “a robot that has expanded horizontally in an effort to obstruct the field” (hereafter “a wallbot”)?
If a robot has anti-tips that were designed to aid in pushing other robots as well as to prevent tipping, is it a wallbot?
If a robot has anti-tips that were designed to aid in pushing other robots as well as to prevent tipping, and during the match the robot uses those anti-tips to pin or trap or otherwise limit the movement of another robot, is it a wallbot?
If the design of the anti-tips is relevant to determining whether or not a robot is a wallbot, then could you please provide some guidance as to how referees should assess whether anti-tips are intended to obstruct the field or not? Currently the language of <G12a> (“Robots that have expanded horizontally in an effort to obstruct the field”) suggests that it is the only rule that requires referees to determine the intent of the robot’s builders as well as its drive team.
And a related question that has nothing to do with anti-tips:
If a robot is built only to score cubes (and not to block other robots) and during the match the robot extends its arm forwards in an effort to obstruct the field, is it a wallbot? That is to say, can an efficiency robot be situationally a wallbot under <G12a>?
If they’re using their anti-tipping device to expand and obstruct the field, they would now be considered a wallbot.
It depends if it has expanded horizontally in an effort to obstruct the field.
It depends if it has expanded horizontally in an effort to obstruct the field.
The intent of the builder is irrelevant. It comes down to what the robot is doing on the field, and whether or not its horizontal expansion has obstructed the field in determination of the head referee.
I apologize for these generic answers, but without seeing a specific implementation, it’s impossible to give a blanket answer that provides more guidance than the wording in the rule. In general, considering the typical size of most anti tipping devices, I would not expect to see these used in a fashion that would invoke <G11a>, especially considering how wide open the field is in Skyrise. (Unlike Sack Attack, when a much smaller robot could obstruct the field due to the proximity of the trough stanchions.)
Situationally, yes. For example, say a scissor lift robot reaches up to 60" to score on a 7-high Skyrise, and in the process tips over. Due to its extreme height it ends up obstructing access to a section of the field. This robot would now be considered a “wallbot” for the purposes of <G12a>, and would lose its normal protections under <G12>.
That’s helpful. In that case, is the rule equivalent to saying that if a robot (A) has expanded horizontally and (B) is attempting to obstruct the field, then it is a wallbot? If not, how is it different?
This is an interesting situation. So a scissor lift (or other tall robot, or really any robot that expands vertically) that falls over and obstructs the field is a wallbot, regardless of intent? The word “effort” in *"in an **effort *to obstruct the field" suggests that intent is required.
Is a robot that falls over (unintentionally) into a position where it obstructs the field required to retract if it wants to avoid being considered a wallbot?
