Answered: Followup to SG14: Repeated momentary violations

If a robot repeatedly (as in every time), but very briefly (that is for fractions of a second) expands beyond 36" while in the action of scoring, should they receive a warning?

If a robot does this in all of its matches, should the team’s warnings be escalated into a DQ?

I understand not wanting to give a blanket ruling based on a hypothetical design and wanting to leave room for referee discretion, but I think referees need some guidance in this area in order to ensure somewhat consistent enforcement across tournaments. I tried to make this question as generalized as possible while also giving a clear idea of the situation.

It seems you recognize how this could clearly lead to inconsistent enforcement when you say “To avoid confusion or unnecessary conflict with your inspectors and referees, we would advise teams to bear this restriction in mind when designing their robots.” It would seem some guidance as to how referees should enforce this rule would be useful rather than telling everyone to design their robots with an abundance of caution to avoid problems. Either the above is legal and the teams should have no conflict with referees or it is illegal and there should be no confusion.

Also to be clear, this is being asked as a result of what Grant Cox (iirc) said at the EP summit as referenced in this Q&A. If not for that I would consider the above to obviously be illegal and warrant a DQ especially after multiple warnings.

Mechanisms that violate rule SG14 intentionally / by design / in order to function should result in a DQ. Accidental violations should result in a warning in line with the guidelines provided in the Q&A that you linked.

A robot’s maximum size should be checked during inspection, per the VRC Robot Inspection Checklist, to reduce the number of cases that require referees to make an SG14 call.