Answered: Intent to Break a Rule (esp G12)

[Highwayman]

@VRC ItZ Game Manual

<G12> Strategies aimed solely at the destruction, damage, tipping over, or Entanglement of Robots are not part of the ethos of the VEX Robotics Competition and are not allowed. However, VEX Robotics Competition In the Zone is an interactive game. Some incidental tipping, Entanglement, and damage may occur as a part of normal game play. If the tipping, Entanglement, or damage is ruled to be intentional or egregious, the offending Team may be disqualified from that Match. Repeated offenses could result in a Team being Disqualified from the remainder of the competition.

Is it specifically the inclusion of the language " Strategies aimed solely at . . . are not part of the ethos of the VEX Robotics Competition and are not allowed" in G12, that makes it illegal (and therefore grounds for disqualification) to show intent to violate this rule? By showing intent, I mean a team clearly attempts to damage, tip over, or entangle their opponents without succeeding in doing so.
Or is it illegal to intend to violate any rule in the game manual regardless of whether the team actually succeeds?

[VEX_GDC]

I mean a team clearly attempts to damage, tip over, or entangle their opponents without succeeding in doing so. Or is it illegal to intend to violate any rule in the game manual regardless of whether the team actually succeeds?

Referees can only be expected to make rulings based upon what they see happen on the field. A DQ can not occur just because a team thinks about breaking a rule. Rather, G12 comes into play when a destructive interaction actually occurs on the field, and a referee needs to determine whether that was an accident or the result of a hostile strategy.

If this happens, we recommend that referees base that judgment call on actions that can be seen on the field, not inferences of intent. One example of this is referenced in the Referee Training video regarding tipping. When a potential tip begins, referees are advised to watch for an intentional push to continue knocking over their opponent. This an objective, willful action that can not be misinterpreted or clouded by trying to estimate a driver’s intent.

Many times, it is not quite as clear-cut as the (obviously dramatized) example in the video. A different portion of G12 offers this line to provide some guidance in those situations:

In the case where referees are forced to make a judgment call on interaction between a defensive and offensive Robot, the referees will err on the side of the offensive Robot.

If partaking in a defensive strategy that would potentially call G12 into question, then this principle should be kept in mind. Referees are advised to rule the defensive robot (or, in your question, the one who is attempting a destructive strategy) at fault for a warning or possible DQ.