Would a type of net shooter for the endgame where a net would be shot out (and still attached to the robot) to cover as many tiles as possible be against the rules?
1 Like
if there is no rule against it, it is legal.
7 Likes
Depends how you implement it. The most common answer for these types of questions is “does it pose an entanglement risk with other robots?” If the answer is no (and really make sure to put yourself in the shoes of an inspector), then go for it.
5 Likes
Keep in mind it can’t arc higher than 18"
Defense on the end game will be cool
2 Likes
I am waiting for the Q and A to come out about this. I’ve heard people saying that during endgame entanglement might not count.
2 Likes
Also take a look at this thread
2 Likes
The entanglement rule doesn’t count in endgame. As long as you’re not egregiously damaging other robots you’re ok.
Citation, please.
4 Likes
Its G12.d
Incidental damage that is caused by pushing, tipping, or Entangling during the
Endgame will not be considered a Violation of G12
4 Likes
It says incidental entanglement won’t be a violation. Whether or not a “string shooter” would be considered dangerous is yet to be decided.
2 Likes
Thats true but I feel like string doesn’t really damage any bots so I’m hoping it wont be considered dangerous.
But it might be considered having an unnecessary risk of entanglement. I am certain this will be one of the first questions asked in the Q and A.
Oh 100% but rn im gonna go with it isnt unnecessary risk
the string has a very unlikely chance of getting entangled in drivetrains
1 Like
What happens if the opponent robot hits the the team robot and the hit activates the launch premature? We had an issue where one team was DQ’ed from that, launched the string and then got entangled in it.
We had similar issues earlier in the season, and found that the solution is to just build a more reliable expansion. From a judges point-of-view, being pushed/hit by another robot is expected during a match, and teams should design mechanisms that are resilient to usual match activity. Also an expansion mechanism that can be activated by just a hit from an opponent robot poses a HUGE safety risk for everybody around the robot.
PS: In the future don’t reply to an old thread, especially if there are more recent relevant threads. Or just make a new topic instead.
The Judge’s point-of-view is evaluating engineering notebooks and interviewing teams for judged awards. It’s the Referee’s point-of-view, and specifically the Head Referee, that matters.
2 Likes
Just for clarification - Judges interview teams, review notebooks, and watch matches to determine who will win judged awards. Matches on the fields are officiated by Referees, where on is the Head Referee and has ultimate decision on implementation of the Game Manual rules as written.
In the Game Manual, it is clearly written that it can not be determined if a premature expansion prior to endgame time is intentional or not. If mechanisms leave the field, it is an automatic DQ whether or not it happened prior to end game. Expansions that occur prior to end game will result in covered tiles not being counted. However, if the expansion outside the field will have the tiles counted for the alliance score - this was the subject of a recent Q&A clarification.
3 Likes