Answered: Clarification on <G11>

If wall-bots will not be at all protected under <G11>, then does this mean that an offensive robot can intentionally tip or damage a wallbot? Also, would it be legal for an offensive robot to use its intake to tear a wallbot’s wires out of its cortex? This seems quite radical…

First off, thank you for quoting the specific rule and naming your thread appropriately. This is a nice example of how to pose a question in the Q&A forum, as outlined in our Q&A Usage Guidelines.

<G11a> is intended to make it clear, that wall-bots are responsible for any interaction that comes as a result of an opposing robot trying to get past the wall-bot. If an opposing robot tips a wall-bot while trying to pass by them, this would not be considered a violation of <G11>.

However, tearing wires out of a Cortex is not an effort to get past a wall-bot, it is unsportsmanlike, willful destruction, which will never be tolerated in the VEX Robotics Competition.

Alright, thanks for clearing that up! I’m glad that unsportsmanlike destruction will still not be allowed.

You’re welcome!

I have another question regarding <G11.a> (quoted in O.P.). What is defined as “expanding horizontally to obstruct the field?” Would having wings on the sides of my intake to cover a trough be considered obstructing the field?

Hypothetical situations dealing with specific designs are difficult to address with any sort of blanket ruling. That being said, what you’ve described does sound like obstructing the field.

Sorry to play the what-if game, but if I may just ask one more… Referring to the bolded text from your post quoted above, if my hypothetical “wings” did not span an area longer than one trough, would they still be obstructing the field?

One more question (and then I’ll leave you alone, I promise!): If a robot expands horizontally for purposes other than to obstruct the field (e.i. to touch its starting tile from far away), would it still be protected by <G11>?

Please read the post you quoted very carefully. It says that generally, if you have expanded to cover the length of a trough or more, you’re probably obstructing the field. This does not imply that expanding to a lesser distance means you are not obstructing the field. Teams who design any sort of “wing” devices should be prepared for them to fall under <G11a>

Yes, as clearly stated in <G11a>, the expansion must be involved in an effort to obstruct the field to qualify under this rule. However, just because a device has an alternate purpose, doesn’t mean it still can’t be used to obstruct the field. In the case you’ve described, if you’ve expanded a telescoping device to get your robot Parked at the end of the match, but it also simultaneously blocks a team from traversing the field, they can now push through it and not worry about being penalized under <G11>.

Alright. Thanks for the answers!

You’re welcome!