I have a question regarding <G5a>, and a follow-up after that one:
During a tournament that I refereed last weekend, there was this team from Arkansas in a match whose robot did not work in the autonomous period (i.e. it did not move at all in the autonomous period when it was supposed to). In the driver control period, the robot still was not responsive to the team’s commands. Per <G5a>, they were permitted to interact with the robot by cycling the on/off switch, and they did so. However, when the switch was turned on, the robot moved, although it still was not fully responsive, i.e. in the team’s view, not “fixed”. At that point, I declared the robot to have moved and prohibited the team from further contact with the robot for the remainder of the match. Was I correct in declaring the robot off-limits on the basis of a human-initiated, yet robot-controlled abnormal movement?
Would the same logic apply in the case of a team member accidentally bumping a robot mechanism and moving it (in this case, the robot is not actively moving the mechanism) while in the process of fixing it per <G5a>?
Also, thank you very much for publishing the Q&A summary document. It will definitely help me and my fellow referees in the next tournament that my old high school is hosting.