Just not long ago, teams on the forums have discussed flip-out mechanisms that can be potentially activated by the opponent. This idea has been re-discussed again by my teammates and I wish to clarify on its legality.
Someone pointed out that these kind of mechanisms would be illegal, quoting rule <G12>
But then again, there is rule <SG13> to defend these kind of flip-out mechanisms:
So may I ask, when faced with this situation, what ruling should judges give?
Teams have discussed a flip-out mechanism that makes the robot expand out of the 18" x 18" x 18" limit (specifically for elevation). But, because of how this mechanism was designed, opponents could potentially activate it, thus causing the robot to break the rule of expansion.
Rule <SG13> prevents the opponent from purposely activating the flip-out mechanism, because it is forcing the other robot to break the expansion rule. But rule <G12> states that the team should be responsible for their own robot flip-out mechanism, and should be responsible since they designed it such that opponents can activate it.
When such a case is to happen, which team should be penalised? Is it the robot that has the flip-out mechanism, or the opponent robot that purposely activated the flip-out mechanism?
If an opponent accidentally triggers the flip out mechanism during normal interactive gameplay (i.e. pushing, ramming, etc.) then the expanded Team would be penalized for violating the expansion rules. However if in the referees determination, the opponent goes out of their way to intentionally triggers the mechanism, the expanded team would be protected by <SG13>. However, we see the second situation being rather rare, and expect most interactions of this type to be covered by the first situation.