Answered: Crossing alliance tile during autonomous SG7 and SG8

At a recent event, the opposing robot crossed over our starting tile during autonomous. The referee did the proper thing and disabled the robot by having the driver place the controls on the floor (per rule SG7).

Our questions centers around the last part of rule SG3 - specifically “there is no penalty for pinning during the Autonomous period.”

question 1: if the robot comes across and makes contact with our robot and consequently becomes disabled (per rule SG7) and we are pinned or trapped because of the action - should the robot also be disqualified per rule SG3?

We believe the robot should be disqualified about 5 seconds into the driver control period because it has been disabled, has trapped our robot and the driver is responsible for the robot even if it stops moving (in this case because of being disabled). Are we correct?

We also believe that our robot is performing specific tasks during autonomous and is exposed to potential damage from opposing robots when they come charging across the field onto our starting tile during autonomous. Without driver control we cannot retract arms or appendages which may be extended while on our starting tile (we have built the robot and programmed the robot to deal with the rules and not for robots which may not be). If the opposing robot makes contact with our robot we believe the actions to be intentional and egregious and believe that rule G11 should also apply in this case. Do you agree?

question 2: If the same opposing robot pushes bags across the floor and deposits them onto our robot during autonomous (which really happened)-does the referee have to determine intent as per rule SG8 or does this rule not apply since the opposing robot is in the process of scoring? In this case the opposing robot was scoring sacks onto the opposing starting tile during autonomous.

Sorry about asking crazy questions but these things do happen and we cannot always rely on rule G1 to apply when referees are involved so sometimes we like to have a G15 in our pocket.

Yes, this is correct,

We cannot issue a blanket statement about a small snapshot of a hypothetical situation. However there are rare situations where a referee could rule this type of action to be an attempt to inflict intentional damage.

This would not be a violations of <SG8> because this action would be ruled to be accidental.