Answered: Clarification on "Shovel Entanglement"

Hello, Karthik,

As per the ruling on this post about shovels (https://vexforum.com/t/answered-ref-question-on-pinning-trapping-entanglement/22483/1),

In addition, <R3> states that

And <G11>, states

Suppose Robot A has a “skirt” of Lexan that could functionally serve as a shovel, that is, able to intake sacks. This skirt covers the perimeter of the said robot, and is lowered onto the field at the start of the match.

Robot B is a generic, mobile robot.

Robot A decides to park and remain stationary on the field, and has no intention of moving for the remainder of the match. Robot B then drives over Robot A’s skirt.

a. Would Robot B be penalized for intentional entanglement as per your previous ruling? Or, since Robot A has no intention of moving, and is thus “immobilized”, an entanglement would not be called? If no, would Robot A attempting to move lead to Robot B being penalized for entanglement?

b. Would Robot A be called out for having a mechanism that poses an unnecessary risk of entanglement as per <R3>?

c. Would Robot A’s skirt be ruled as an expansion to obstruct the field, since it chooses to remain in one place with its skirt at risk of being driven over, and lose protection from <G11>?

Thank you in advance, I know ruling off of a hypothetical situation can be murky, but I can’t think of a better way to explain this.

There would be no call for entanglement here, until it was demonstrated that Robot A was trying to move from under Robot B, and was unable to.

No, this would not be considered an unnecessary risk of entanglement.

No, it would not.

Alright, thank you for your time, Karthik

You’re welcome!

1 Like