Answered: Definition of "intentional contact"

Definition of “intentional contact” as stated in rule <G7>, where as if a robot, during “autonomouse period” , has become entangled with a field element (not in violation of <S1>) and protruding on to the opposing side, with emanant possibilty of violating <SG6> and not in violation of <G12>, be told by the head referee to stand the robot up?

As there is no specific rule to such a ruling, whether or not, can a “team member” be instructed by the referee to “touch” their robot. My ruling at the time was to have a team member untangle the robot (so not to damage a field element, the fence, the robot was a scissor rise and was fully extended, it’s drive part was on the other side, if game play were allowed, as there is no rule for me to apply, any attempt to upright it self would have caused damage, in my opinion) and stand it up. In the past games, entanglement, was always treated that way. As it was only “qualification” and in the spirit of “game play”, that was my ruling. Consequently, the same robot did it again and since I warned them that if it did it again, I would have them not participate in the “driver mode”, as what did happen.

Given the facts, the drive team did not “intetionally touch” the robot, but by instruction of the head referee. That alone, as there is NO RULE to address it leaves me with only what I deamed fair and in keep with <G1> and <TO1>!!

In general we recommend that referees do not ask Drive Team Members to touch Robots during the Match for reasons of safety. However, if a referee does do so to try and avoid a situation where the field could be damaged, this would not be a violation of <G7>.

This would be the recommended practice in a situation where a Robot becomes caught in the Fence and poses a risk of damaging the Fence.