clarification on rules

[daveimi]

I don't know how it falls within the rules 'technical speak' lol but I personally see a robot as immobile if it has no way of getting over to another opponent to attack. Whether that's because of parts failure, it's stuck on something, it can't self right, the battery is flat etc., if it can demonstrate the ability to travel towards a target to launch an attack then technically it's mobile.

[Garfie489]

if it can demonstrate the ability to travel towards a target to launch an attack then technically it's mobile.

Id agree with this definition. If one robot backs off, then the other needs to prove its capable of being offensive.

[Ellis]

Again I think that would potentially knockout a huge portion of competitors. A rule like that can't be written clearly for all situations and is still wide open for interpretation unless further defined. Good drivers with broken machines could be allowed whilst dodgy drivers with functional drive would get weeded out, which is silly. Also, it'd have to be applied mid-fight every time a robot seems to not have fine control, which by nature would cause disputes however honest the judges' decisions. Too subjective.

Kind of off topic from the OP but yeah. Stopping the moment there's fire just seems like a good idea, and I'm fine with the concept of proving movement after a fight, just think the figure 8 is OTT.

[Flag Captured]

Within reason, of course... if your machine is moving but so slowly that it might as well be immobile, it should be counted out. I'd use 720 as an example here - it lost drive to one side, so was in theory immobile however could use the drum to move towards opponents, so it still should be able to fight. Of course, it's always going to count against in a close judges decision (losing drive is damage overall) but perhaps it should be given less of a focus if you can still move, even if it is just by utilising centrifugal effects like 720, or spinning round and using the bar to nudge forwards like Last Rites does...

[RogueTwoRobots]

I'd say if there is going to be a rule, it can't be subjective.

For example, a one-wheeled 720 or NST using spinning forces to manoeuvre could be considered mobile at one event, but immobilised at another event with a different judging team. That just leads to inconsistency and complaints among roboteers. The rule needs to be clearly defined so that there is no grey area that could lead to disputes, otherwise there's no point in adding a rule in. Not that we need one anyway

[typhoon_driver]

This all just seems to be complicating matters.

[cliveb]

I have just looked at all the posts and i think the rules should be changed to account for a one wheel drive robot so i propose that the immobilsation rule should not be one side gone your out it should be that the whole robot has to be dead to win that way there is no arguments and if any one thinks that this is wrong think about it if you cant beat a one wheeled drive robot then you deserve to lose i know if that happend to me i would be disapointed but i wouldnt be able to argue and and it makes the rules so much clearer

I thought at the last AGM that you Will and Craig accepted the task of sorting out the scoring system for the FRA. Does immobility not come under scoring for the judges?