Answered: Multiple <SG8> Clarifications

[Mr_L_on_Yoshi]

As <SG8> states,

Robots may not intentionally grasp, grapple or attach to any Field Elements or the opposing
Hanging Bar. Strategies with mechanisms that react against multiple sides of a field element in an
effort to latch onto said field element are prohibited. The intent of this rule is to prevent teams from
both unintentionally damaging the field, and from anchoring themselves to the field. Minor violations
of this rule that do not affect the match will result in a warning. Egregious (match affecting) offenses
will result in a Disqualification. Teams that receive multiple warnings may also receive a
Disqualification at the head referee’s discretion.

As it seems, simply resting any (non-breaking) about of weight onto one side of a field object is legal. Is this the correct interpretation?
For example, a robot could have its drive base on the foam tiles and an intake with many game objects resting on the fence. The intent of this strategy would be to lower the amount of stress on motors while holding game objects over the fence while waiting for a mechanism to react.

Additionally, what is the technical definition of a “mechanism” with respect to this rule? Would this include intentional strategies, such as the one above, as well as unintentional strategies, such as a stray wire which hits a second side of the fence in the example above?

Furthermore, do multiple “mechanisms” count towards this ruling? In the previous scenario, the resting intake could be reacting on the top of the fence while a bar (for the use of keeping the drive train of the robot from contacting the other side of the field) contacts the side of the fence. In this scenario, the bot would not be anchored to the field and separate mechanisms with separate purposes would be contacting the fence. Is this a correct interpretation of a legal scenario?

Now, would anchoring a bot in place via multiple field elements (such as the fence and the wall opposite to the fence) be a legal strategy? What if, in this scenario, additional mechanisms are developed (such as rollers) that allow the bot to move across the field, thus only anchoring it in one direction? An attached image has been provided for visual clarification; the blue rectangle is a bot that is exerting moderate force on the fence and the field perimeter to stay in place.
Or, in this case, what if the bot was against the field perimeter away from the fence, and resting above the fence so that it could move forwards, but not backwards?

Finally, your ruling in this thread states the following:

The fence is one element.

Thus, would multiple surfaces from a bot be able to react/rest on red areas of the second attached image areas of a fence, regardless of the examples mentioned above?

Thank you for answering all of these trivial questions; I’d hate for a team to be disqualified/cleared for having a strategy above without having an official ruling to point to.

[Karthik]

@Mr_L_on_Yoshi

As it seems, simply resting any (non-breaking) about of weight onto one side of a field object is legal. Is this the correct interpretation?

Yes, this is legal.

@Mr_L_on_Yoshi

For example, a robot could have its drive base on the foam tiles and an intake with many game objects resting on the fence. The intent of this strategy would be to lower the amount of stress on motors while holding game objects over the fence while waiting for a mechanism to react.

Yes, this is legal.

@Mr_L_on_Yoshi

Additionally, what is the technical definition of a “mechanism” with respect to this rule? Would this include intentional strategies, such as the one above, as well as unintentional strategies, such as a stray wire which hits a second side of the fence in the example above?

Anything which grasps, grapples, or attaches to the field would apply. A PWM cable that happens to touch two sides of a field element would not be a violation. This rule is to prevent teams from attaching to the field.

@Mr_L_on_Yoshi

Furthermore, do multiple “mechanisms” count towards this ruling? In the previous scenario, the resting intake could be reacting on the top of the fence while a bar (for the use of keeping the drive train of the robot from contacting the other side of the field) contacts the side of the fence. In this scenario, the bot would not be anchored to the field and separate mechanisms with separate purposes would be contacting the fence. Is this a correct interpretation of a legal scenario?

As always we cannot give blanket rulings on these types of hypothetical situations, however this seems like a case of simple contact and not a case of anchoring or attaching.

@Mr_L_on_Yoshi

Now, would anchoring a bot in place via multiple field elements (such as the fence and the wall opposite to the fence) be a legal strategy? What if, in this scenario, additional mechanisms are developed (such as rollers) that allow the bot to move across the field, thus only anchoring it in one direction? An attached image has been provided for visual clarification; the blue rectangle is a bot that is exerting moderate force on the fence and the field perimeter to stay in place.
Or, in this case, what if the bot was against the field perimeter away from the fence, and resting above the fence so that it could move forwards, but not backwards?

Again, we can’t give a blanket ruling on this type of hypothetical. It sounds legal since from what you’ve described no grasping, grabbing, or attaching has taken place. However, it’s impossible to issue a ruling without seeing the robot in question.

@Mr_L_on_Yoshi

Thus, would multiple surfaces from a bot be able to react/rest on red areas of the second attached image areas of a fence, regardless of the examples mentioned above?

Again, you can’t grasp, grab, or attach to the Fence.